Better a Dull Memoir

This first appeared on Splice Today.

You’d think Pam Grier’s life would make for a fascinating memoir. Raised working class and rural, subjected to racial discrimination throughout her childhood and raped twice, she nonetheless, through sheer determination, smarts, and astonishing good looks, managed to carve out a career as an actor. Her iconic presence in some of the most successful and influential blaxploitation films made her perhaps the screen’s first female action hero. And along the way to semi-stardom, she dated luminaries like Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Freddie Prinze, and Richard Pryor, survived breast-cancer, and hobnobbed, it seems, with everyone who was anyone, from Sammy Davis Jr. to Fellini.

So, like I said, there seems to be a lot worth reading about there. And the book certainly is affecting in parts. As the father of a six-year-old, I found Grier’s account of being raped at that age actually nauseating. Less somberly, Grier’s discussion of one of her visit’s to the gynecologist has to be one of the top gossip anecdotes of the year so far. In her account, Grier explains that the doctor discovered “cocaine residue around the cervix and in the vagina” and asked Grier if her lover was putting cocaine on his penis. “ Grier responds, “That’s a possibility…. You know, I am dating Richard Pryor.”

Then she admits to the doctor that during oral sex her lips and tongue go numb because, apparently, Richard Pryor did so much coke that it made his semen an opiate.

And yet, despite such moments of interest, the memoir overall is surprisingly flat. Anecdotes are dutifully hauled out — here’s Grier with her church choir at ground zero of the Watts riots; here she is singing with a drunk John Lennon. But the memoir stays on the surface; you get little sense of Grier’s inner life, ideas, or passions. Her discussions of racial and sexual prejudice are for the most part innocuous boilerplate. There are some hints that she has ambivalent feelings about the exploitive elements in her early roles, but those issues are never really explored. She’s politely reverent towards most of the stars she comes across, from Paul Newman to Tim Burton.

Part of the failure here is no doubt the fault of co-writer Andrea Cagan, whose prose never rises above competent. But the main problem is Grier’s personality. In a couple of places in the book Grier notes that she’s a “private” person — which is, like much in the memoir, a significant understatement. Grier is not merely private; she is fiercely, even remorselessly, adamant about protecting her personal boundaries. When one of her first serious romantic interests, the sexy, talented, wealthy, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, tells her he loves her and asks her to become a Muslim so he can marry her, she takes her time…thinks about it…and finally says no. When the sexy, talented, wealthy, but frighteningly coked-up Richard Pryor wants a serious relationship with her, she takes her time…thinks about it…and eventually walks. In 1977, Freddie Prinze — with whom she’d broken up two years previously — called her to say that he had bought a gun, was thinking of using it on himself, and needed her to come help him. Though she was staying only a few blocks away from his hotel, she refused to go see him. Three days later he committed suicide. Grier notes that she was “heartbroken” and, for a while, guilty, but ultimately concludes “I wanted to save his soul, but I knew that only he could help himself, and he hadn’t really wanted to.”

My point here isn’t to condemn Grier for callousness — on the contrary, all the decisions above seem absolutely reasonable. Abdul-Jabbar, while possessed of many fine qualities, seems to have clearly been a controlling asshole. Similarly, Richard Pryor was, clearly, one of the most catastrophic train wrecks of the decade, if not the century. And even the phone call from Freddie Prinze — your ex with a megacocaine problem calls you up to tell you he’s got a gun and is feeling paranoid, please come over? I don’t think you can be faulted for saying, “you know what? No.”

A U.S.A. Today blurb on the back of Foxy declares “Pam Grier is a survivor.” When you read that, you think of her fierce characters in Coffy or Foxy Brown — fighters who took on incredible odds and beat the system. The thing is, though, in real life, survivors aren’t like that. If you take on incredible odds, you usually lose. Somebody who is going to survive has to pick her battles very carefully — and realize that usually, the best defense is actually just defense. Again and again throughout the memoir, Grier protects her safety and sanity not by embracing violence or revenge, but by refusing to do so. When she is date-raped at 18, she doesn’t tell her family because she fears that if she did, her male relatives would kill her attacker and end up in jail. As an adult, when her cousin and best friend, dying of cancer, asks Grier to read out-loud in church a manifesto attacking her abusive husband, Grier refuses. “I couldn’t open so many wounds and deal with the aftermath,” Grier writes. “I refused to be the one to read the letter and stir the pot — a decision I regret to this day.”

Again, I’m not judging — these are incredibly difficult choices, made under extreme duress, and I don’t think anyone but Grier is in a position to decide whether she did the right thing, or whether there was even a right thing to do. The point, though, is that in most every instance, Grier’s instinct is to avoid stirring the pot — and stirring the pot is exactly what you want to do in a book like this. The most successful celebrity memoirs — such as Jenna Jameson’s riveting and surprisingly insightful 2004 How to Make Love Like a Pornstar — are shameless both in their self-revelation and in their skewering of others. Pam Grier, despite all those exploitation films, doesn’t appear to have a shameless bone in her body. The qualities that allowed her to get where she did — her reserve, her poise, her dignity — are the very things that make Foxy so underwhelming. Still, even though as a reader I was disappointed, I can’t really find it in me to wish that the memoir was better. If you have to choose one or the other, after all, a successful human being is surely preferable to a successful book.

Bad Boys

Somewhat at random, I rewatched “Groundhog Day,” which I haven’t seen since back in the early 90s when it came out. I hadn’t realized that in the intervening years it’s become something of a classic. In fact, there doesn’t seem to be a negative review about it on the Internets (or at least I couldn’t find one after a cursory search.)

Continue reading

Lies Real Enough to Love

In Andrei Tarkovsky’s 1972 film Solaris the first glimpse we catch of the titular planet is in a film of a film of a film. The pudgily somnolent hero, Kris Kelvin (Donatas Banionis), bores us by being stolidly bored himself as he watches the film of the testimony of Henri Burton (Vladislav Dvorzhetsky), a space pilot who way back when saw a giant space baby in the fog above the ocean of Solaris — a giant space baby that was not, we repeat not, cribbed from 2001, damn it, we swear. Young Burton in the film stutters and drones his way through a foggy mire of drab description while an older, balder Burton fusses and twitches, occasionally skipping ahead as if to taunt us with our inability to do the same (or, in the era of DVDs, to goad us into doing so.) Eventually the young Burton in the film cues another film, on which is no baby, but just more foggy mire. Young Burton stutters, old Burton twitches, Kelvin somnolents, and the film ends, and the film ends, and the film trudges wearily on.

Continue reading

I Flicker Therefore I Am

This article first appeared at Splice Today.
_________________________

A substantial portion of Descartes’ Discourse on Method is devoted to explaining why discussing his ideas with other thinkers would be useless. Instead, he concludes, his interlocutors could best contribute to the advancement of knowledge not by talking to him, but by “contributing to defray the expenses of the experiments that might be necessary.” Don’t criticize; just send money.

Which just goes to demonstrate that, from the beginning of modern Western philosophy, philosophers have not held a very high opinion of criticism, language, or philosophy. Descartes denigrated philosophical discourse in favor of experiments; Kierkegaard denigrated it in favor of faith; and now John Mullarkey denigrates it in favor of film.

Continue reading

39 Pedestrian Steps

I just watched Hitchcock’s 39 Steps for the first time — or I thought it was for the first time. I actually vaguely remembered some scenes, though, so I must have seen it before.

Anyway, it’s clear why I forgot it. It’s forgettable. Halfway through it I was like, jeez, this must be one of Hitchcock’s clunkers, right? The plot might be better described as a plot hole — from the early murder of Annabelle Smith (who stabbed her? how’d they get in the apartment? why didn’t they stab that idiot Hanney as long as they were there?) to the moronic denoument (Mr. Memory starts blithely spouting spy secrets just because someone asks him about them — that’s convenient) the narrative lurches from one nonsensical improbability to another. It’s like it was written by monkeys with their frontal lobes removed.

Continue reading

Mistaking the Movies for the Trees

This essay first appeared on Splice Today.
____________________________

As a first time reader of Pauline Kael, I was surprised to discover that she’s boring as fuck.

Okay, to be fair, she’s sometimes slightly less boring than that. Going Steady, her third volume from 1968 and the one which I happened to get my hands on, has its share of zingers. I smiled when she noted acidly of Mel Brooks’ script for the producers: “That’s not screenwriting; it’s gagwriting.” I’m always up for seeing Norman Mailer ridiculed, and her pummeling of his Wild 90 as a lazy egoistic exercise in flab was satisfying on that account. And there are several entertaining anecdotes sprinkled throughout. Such as this one:

Once, in Berkeley, after a lecture by LeRoi Jones, as the audience got up to leave, I asked an elderly white couple next to me how they could applaud when Jones said that all whites should be killed. And the little gray-haired woman replied, “But that was just a metaphor. He’s a wonderful speaker.

Continue reading

Torturing Children for the Honor of the Nation

A little while back I read the first volume of Koike and Kamimura’s Lady Snowblood and was impressed with the craft but repulsed by the content. Basically it seemed to me that the work contrasted a nostalgic code of honor with a decadent modernity, and used that contrast as an excuse for vicious and racialized murder, rape, and the general fetishization of force and death. It made me understand more clearly than I had done before what strands of thought in Japan might have allowed that nation to reach an agreement with Germany during World War II.

A commentor encouraged me to try the Lady Snowblood movie from the early 1970s, suggesting that it avoided many of the problems of the book. So I’ve finally seen it…and the commenter was correct to some extent. Lady Snowblood doesn’t force a man to rape an innocent girl at knife point. The racial subtext — the positing of decadent Western modernity as a crime itself worthy of vengeance — is sort of, kind of still present, but it ends up way down in the mix.

But nevertheless…even for somebody like me who finds a lot to like in rape revenge films like “I Spit on Your Grave,” this movie is awfully hard to get behind — at least for a pansy liberal Westerner like me. The plot is built around the idea not of individual revenge, but of generational honor killing — the protagonist Yuki’s father was killed by a gang in front of her mother’s eyes; they then raped the mother. Mother then set out to revenge herself, but ended up in prison for life. So sheset about getting herself pregnant by sleeping with anyone she could, so as to have a child who would carry out her vengeance. Mom dies in childbirth, and Yuki ends up with a friend of Mom’s and a foster dad. Step-dad eagerly takes up the task of preparing the child for vengeance, explaining to her that she’s an inhuman monster devoted to killing and sets up a rigorous training program from the time she’s like 6 or 8 or something, putting her in barrels and rolling her down hills and beating her with sticks. So eventually Yuki grows up to be an inhuman killing machine just like her daddy and mommy wanted and we get to watch her chop a bunch of bad folks up. Whoo hoo.

The thing that really stuck in my craw here wasn’t the killing or the spurting blood, all of which is standard fare for rape revenge films and/or horror films and/or lots of movies I rather like. Instead, what disturbed me most was the treatment of Yuki by her parents (biological and foster). The idea that you would actually create a child solely and specifically to take care of your own random shit — as a parent I’m perhaps identifying overly here, but I just can’t support that. People aren’t things, or as Kant would say, people are ends, not means. Yuki always shouts “an eye for an eye” while doing her dirty work, but the actual economy of the film is one person’s death for somebody else’s unrelated life. The worst act of injustice here is not what is done to Yuki’s mom or dad — horrible as that is — but rather what is done to Yuki.

I guess you could argue that that’s the point of the movie — that is, it’s supposed to make us sympathize with Yuki and see the pointlessness of her honor and her revenge. I don’t think that’s what’s really going down, though. Nobody in the film ever even suggests to Yuki that maybe the revenge thing is not what it’s cracked up to be. Instead, everyone seems to more or less happily accept the idea that spending your life taking care of your broken mother’s unfinished business is a really good idea. Even the voice over narration gets into the act, telling us what a wonderful person Yuki really is beneath that unrelenting mask. And then there’s Yuki’s own internal monologue, in which Yuki says she actually remembers her Mom from when she was like five minutes old, and it’s those personal memories which drive her revenge.

The point ultimately seems to be that honor, and particularly family honor, is the only self you have. Your honor is your psychology, your personal motivation, your soul — that’s all there is to you. As such, the individual is, in fact a means, and the end is the family or the collective or, ultimately, the nation. And, again, that seems a fair approximation of fascism. As a mealy-mouthed liberal relativist embarrassed about his own Judeo-Christian heritage it’s hard for me to come out and say this, but — I think that’s evil, damn it.
_________________

For a more positive take on Koike and Kamimura, you can read Richard Cook on Lone Wolf and Cub here.

Update: Koike yes, but not Kamimura, as Richard explains in comments.

Update 2: Suat defends Lady Snowblood here.