tom stoppard (1937-2025)

Here are two obituaries:

1) “Tom Stoppard, Award-Winning Playwright of Witty Drama, Dies at 88” (the New York Times)

2) “Sir Tom Stoppard obituary” (the Guardian)

I have nothing comprehensive or authoritative to say about Tom Stoppard.

That being said, thinking back, I have seen quite a few of his plays. It’s a small number, compared to the number of plays he wrote, but a surprisingly large number for me, given that I’m not much of a theater-goer. This is mostly thanks to my parents.

1) 1968: The Real Inspector Hound. I’ve seen this on stage at least twice. It’s absolutely wonderful, especially if you’re reasonable familiar with the type of mysteries Agatha Christie wrote. It’s also an influence on the very entertaining movie See How They Run (2022) where the police inspector is named George Stoppard.

2) 1974: Travesties. I saw this on Broadway, with John Wood as Henry Carr. The play was tremendously enjoyable, especially since I already had (again, thanks to my parents) a fair familiarity with both Ulysses and The Importance of Being Earnest, and also some knowledge of Dada.

3) 1977: Professional Foul. A television play that I believe I watched twice, and I thought it was amazing. Very cleverly written, and leading to a great ending/resolution. It doesn’t seem to be available to watch in any form now, and I just thought of buying it and reading it, but the book cover looked familiar and I realized I already own it.

4) 1979: Dogg’s Hamlet, Cahoot’s Macbeth. Saw it, don’t remember it that well, except that it contains 15-Minute Hamlet (which itself contains a 2-minute Hamlet) which is hilarious.

5) 1990: Rosencrantz & Guildenstern are Dead. Never saw the play (1966) on stage, but the movie (directed by Stoppard) is wonderful. If you don’t have any knowledge of Stoppard’s work, this would be a good place to start. It helps to know a little bit about Hamlet, but it’s not absolutely necessary.

6) 1993: Arcadia. I remember this being very enjoyable, but it hasn’t stuck with me like Travesties, Professional Foul, or R&C are Dead. That may be my fault.

7) 2006: Rock ‘n’ Roll. Very well done but, for me, not entirely satisfying (or memorable, or persuasive).

I think that’s it. I’ve also read some others (After Magritte, Hapgood, The Real Thing, probably more).

Oh, and I just remembered that I did see Dirty Linen and New-Found-Land (1976, performed together) on stage. Very witty and enjoyable, but I don’t remember a lot of details.

I’m definitely going to read Professional Foul, and I hope it lives up to my memory from almost fifty years ago.

image_pdfimage_print

the witcher, interrupted

I was going to write about The Witcher, and I still am, but first I need to write for a moment about Charli xcx. (Nobody’s more surprised about this than I am.)

Charli xcx is a singer and songwriter, and she never really made much of an impression on me until I read about her unplanned collaboration with Lorde (who has made a big impression on me over the years) on the song “Girl, So Confusing.”

So, that was something, but the song didn’t grab me as much as the backstory.

But then there was this: “Charli xcx – House featuring John Cale“!

I’ve been trying to think about a collaboration that would have seemed as surprising to me, but nothing comes to me. But the great thing is how good the end result is. Wow.

 
And now for our regularly scheduled blog post.

The Witcher is a series of fantasy books written by Andrzej Sapkowski. I haven’t read them. There is also a series of video games, based on the books, and I haven’t played them. But I have watched, and I continue to watch, the TV show which is based on the novels. I am very attached to it, and to the characters, and a lot of the actors, perhaps even beyond what the whole thing deserves.

Liking the Witcher show is, online, a controversial opinion to express, for a variety of reasons. Some devoted readers of the books never liked the show because it doesn’t Follow the Books. The star, Henry Cavill, was known to be a fan of the books and of the games, so the narrative developed that he was struggling, heroically, to get the show to Follow the Books.

(Some people also minded that the show doesn’t follow the games, but that argument is silly on the face of it because both the TV show and the games are adaptations of the original text: the books. That’s like complaining that the TV show Sherlock doesn’t follow the movies with Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law.)

Anyway, I have also heard (I haven’t seen this myself) that some people complained that there was no indication in the books that any characters were any race other than white, and a fair number of the (very large cast) are actually (!) Not White. But this is just hearsay.

But then, after the third season, Henry Cavill quit the show. As far as I have heard, he has not given a reason, but the narrative in some corners inevitably turned into: “Our Hero Henry has given up on his sacred quest to make this darn show Follow the Books.” So, he has been replaced by Liam Hemsworth, who I have never seen in anything before. He’s completely… adequate.

But Anya Chalotra (Yennefer) and Freya Allan (Cirilla) and Joey Batey (Jaskier) and all the rest of the actors are still terrific (other than the actor who played Vesemir — who was also recast, unfortunately). Plus they added Laurence Fishburne, who pretty much takes over ever scene he’s in (there’s a reason his voice is the first one you hear in the trailer).

I’m very happy. I’ve enjoyed other shows in the last few years, but (other than Doom Patrol, which ended a while ago) there’s nothing else quite like this (for me).

Maybe someday after the show is over, I’ll start to read the books. Or maybe not — I like the Movie Let the Right One In so much that I’m never going to read the book. The movie sits perfectly in my brain, and that’s the way I like it.

image_pdfimage_print

artificial intelligence and orson welles

I have declared, probably more than once, that I’m not interested in “artificial intelligence.” But until now that’s been a pretty abstract thought, like deciding that I’m not going to watch some new and (theoretically) exciting television show that everybody else seems to be watching.

But, okay, this did get my attention: “AI firm plans to reconstruct lost footage from Orson Welles’ masterpiece The Magnificent Ambersons

In general, I don’t like art that’s “finished” by someone else after the artist is dead (unless the artist made it clear that this was okay, as with Robert Jordan and the “Wheel of Time” fantasy series, for example).

I’m not strict about this. I did see and enjoy The Other Side of the Wind, which was assembled and completed after (long after) the death of Orson Welles, largely by Welles’ friend and acolyte Peter Bogdanovich. For one thing, all the footage was shot by Welles — the hangup was getting it edited, and then Welles, who was desperate to get it finished, lost legal ownership of the footage (very long story). But when you look at it on screen now, everything you see was shot by Welles, and assembled by someone he trusted.

With Touch of Evil, the film was taken away from Welles and re-edited by someone else (and a few new scenes were shot) and that version was released, but Welles wrote a 58-page memo describing how it could be repaired, and then, again long after, the legendary film editor Walter Murch took all the available footage, and Welles’ memo, and did his best to honor the director’s wishes. I’ve seen the original release version (in fact, I believe there are two released versions and I may have seen both of them), and I’ve seen the “restored” version, and the “restored” version works. The film makes sense on a whole different level than the earlier version(s).

But with The Magnificent Ambersons, the movie was shot and then edited, shown to one or more test audiences (while Welles was out of the country), and then the last 45 minutes was removed and (as far as anybody has ever been able to find out) destroyed by the studio.

It annoys me, I will admit, that some machine will be trusted with a task which is far more challenging than what Bogdanovich and Murch undertook on the other Welles films.

Other than film students and film buffs, probably few young people these days have ever seen an Orson Welles film, let alone all of them (as I have, and some many times, and all of them in a theater at least once). What if this machine-created version is shown in theaters and people go and think this is somehow the work of Orson Welles?

Orson Welles made very few films (compared to most directors of his stature), and many of them ended up out of his hands and released in forms over which he had no control. So, maybe this is just one more instance of that.

On a positive note, I just watched Wes Anderson’s The Phoenician Scheme, which was wonderful (and which is obviously very influenced by Welles’ Mr. Arkadin — also called Confidential Report).

Unrelated to Orson Welles, here are two recent articles on artificial intelligence which I found interesting.

  1. From the New Yorker: “What if A.I. Doesn’t Get Much Better Than This?
  2. From the New York Review of Books: “The Parrot in the Machine
image_pdfimage_print

endings, and carly (the non-hypertext story)

1) I’ve written about endings before. I like them. I lost interest in the Marvel movies after Endgame (though I did like Moon Knight). I lost interest in Star Wars at some point (though I really liked Rogue One). I loved the three Lord of the Rings movies, and then I stopped. Beginning, middle, and that wonderful end — what more did I need?

It turns out that’s happened with the Sandman show, too. I liked the first season a lot. The show was supposed to go on for at least several more seasons, but then it was announced that the second season would be the last (long story — you could look it up). The seasons each had series of episodes (ten or eleven), then an extra, self-contained episode which came out later.

I watched the second season, and it was good (not as good as the first, I thought), but it had a very satisfying ending. Then the bonus episode came out, and, even though it’s based on a story I enjoyed in the original comic books, I don’t have any desire to see it right away. I’m sure I’ll watch it eventually, but for now I’d rather just enjoy the ending of the overall story.

 
2) I’ve written about hypertext writing, including my own, here and here, and in other places.

As I said recently, talking about my current project, “In one scene, Character One warns Character Two about getting involved with Character Three, based on personal experience, and I had no idea that Character One and Character Three had ever even met.”

Well, that was fun, but it also bugged me a little, and it made be realize how long it’s been since I read Carly, and so I went back to it, and I found it somewhat tiring to read. I think that hypertext is kind of fun, at least in theory, but ultimately it’s not for me (which is probably one reason I never did it again). But, working on the part of the story I’m working on now, it turned out to be a good idea to go back and refresh myself on what happens immediately before, since, as I said, I’d had no idea that Carly Stein and Nicky Porter had ever met.

Not that I’m rewriting the plot — mostly just polishing the story, and slicing off the fat — but it still seemed to be a good idea to remind myself of the recent history.

But that led to the idea of “flattening” the story Carly — straightening it out into a non-hypertext story, and now that’s done (and I’m pretty happy with it): “Carly (four years earlier)

image_pdfimage_print

robert altman again

I really liked this article about an Altman retrospective: “The Brattle celebrates 100 years of Robert Altman with summer-long series

I particularly liked the comments on:

Shelley Duvall. So many people these days seem to know her mostly (or entirely) from The Shining (and all the stories about how Kubrick abused her to get that incredible performance), but she was wonderful in a wide variety of roles in Altman films during the 1970s.

“Altman pioneered a multitrack recording system that allowed his actors to talk over each other the way we do in real life, conducting glorious cacophonies during which he’d ride the mixing faders, foregrounding stray scraps of dialogue until they turned into punchlines.” I spent a fair amount of time in recording studios and mixing sessions in my youth, and, yes, I can see him in that setting very clearly.

“His highly regarded 1993 ‘Short Cuts’ (Aug. 19) stitches together nine Raymond Carver short stories in a brilliantly acted tapestry of misery, one that I can respect but never quite bring myself to love.” Yes, but I don’t even respect it that much. Overrated, I’ve always thought (though I will concede the “brilliantly acted” comment, especially Lily Tomlin and Tom Waits).

“His last picture, 2006’s ‘A Prairie Home Companion,’ was maybe the most self-reflexive final movie from any director this side of John Huston’s ‘The Dead,’ with Virginia Madsen as a gorgeous grim reaper stalking the hallways during the last broadcast of a beloved radio show. It’s a sunny reflection on the inevitability of endings, full of tears and terrible puns.” Agree completely, about both movies (I’ve drawn that parallel myself, in fact).

My Robert Altman reviews are here.

image_pdfimage_print

in alphabetical order

Here are various comments and updates, in alphabetical order:

Artificial Intelligence: I’m still not paying much attention to this, but I did find this article interesting: “AI Can’t Gaslight Me if I Write by Hand

It’s really too bad that, apparently, people can’t imagine a computer except as a box that connects them to the web. As I’ve said before (probably many times) when I bought my first computer, it was because it meant I’d never again have to retype things in order to edit them.

Other stuff came later (BBSs, email, the web), but that was all gravy. Still is.

Now, I do think there’s a difference between “writing on a computer” (which has, as the writer says, advantages over pen and paper) and “writing on a computer that’s connected to the internet” (which means endless distractions and nonsense, of which AI is only the most recent example), but those are not the only two options.

Turn off your wifi, silence your phone, and then write with whatever tools you prefer. Write description longhand and write dialogue on a keyboard, as Hemingway used to.

 
Lorde: I do like Lorde’s new album, Virgin. I’m not sure how it stacks up against her first two albums (that will clarify itself over time, or not), but I’ve already listened to it more times than I ever listened to Solar Power (album #3). In fact, I may never have listened to Solar Power all the way through even once. I remember a few times thinking that I really should listen to it, so I’d put it on, and then an hour later I’d realize it wasn’t playing any more, but no part of it (except sometimes the song of the same name) had actually captured my attention.

I also like the clips I’ve seen of her performance at Glastonbury.

 
Thomas Pynchon: Still looking forward to Shadow Ticket, and I did enjoy this article: “(Don’t Fear) Thomas Pynchon.”

I do feel shamed by the fact that the fact that the writer of the article is rereading Against the Day. I really do have to read that one (I’ve read the rest, multiple times).

 
Writing: I’m still writing what I’m writing. Sort of the third novel, sort of the next chunk of the second novel, maybe it has a title and maybe it doesn’t — who cares. It’s a story. It has a beginning and a middle and a (pretty open-ended) end. It has a ton of characters.

It’s fun to work on for two reasons. One is that the plot is all set, so I can just tweak punctuation and word choice. Some writers complain about editing, but it can be really fun. Also, since it’s been many years since I’ve read the older novels, I sometimes surprise myself. In one scene, Character One warns Character Two about getting involved with Character Three, based on personal experience, and I had no idea that Character One and Character Three had ever even met. So, that’s fun.

The second fun part of that when I was originally writing it, I apparently felt the need to explain a lot of things about the characters and their history and their abilities and their complex family entanglements. I’m taking most of that out.

Why is Vicki a tiny teenage girl with high, pointed ears, and superhuman strength and speed? Are the Golden mutants, or aliens, or three manifestations of the same person?

I know the answers to some of those questions (I have no idea what’s going on with Vicki’s ears), but dumping those answers into the text doesn’t exactly move things along. That’s not what makes a story (or a movie or TV show) compelling to me.

image_pdfimage_print