Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Absolutely NOT A Diet. Honestly.

Am inspired by a post I just read on Mark’s blog (http://www.markyourtruthhere.blogspot.com "Fasting as a Way of Life") about health and fitness. Liked it so much I read it three times and will probably refer back to it from time to time to help me keep myself on track.

I have recently (too recently--I should have started doing this ages ago) begun incorporating morning walks into my daily routine and am almost (almost) at the point where if I wimp out and don't get up and go I feel lousy, like my day didn't begin properly. I already walk back and forth to work whenever possible, and have been looking into inexpensive Chicago Park District swimming classes and facilities--I would LOVE to have a daily (or even just 3-times per week) swim.

The next task for me is to seriously modify my diet. To that end I have been trying, with varying degrees of success, to end my long love affair with soda and other ultra-sugary, caffeine-laden beverages. I am pleased to report that I have cut waaay back on my coca-cola intake but admittedly am not yet cola-free. (I'll keep you posted.)

A week or so ago I saw a woman interviewed on the Today show who was once staggeringly obese. Though she is still heavy, she is in noticeably better shape than she used to be and credits her weight loss with a kind of baby-steps formula of eliminating one unhealthy food or beverage item at a time. I like that approach. Accordingly, once the soda pop is completely a thing of my self-indulgent past, I will pick something else to remove from my diet; once that item is conquered--and no, I don't yet know what that will be; I'm trying not to scare myself to death with unrealistic goals and expectations--I will add, or rather detract, something else.

Monday, July 28, 2008

Masterpiece Theatre Memories

We fell in love, my mother immediately, me gradually and initially somewhat reluctantly— with the British-PBS (Boston’s WGBH-TV) cross pollination that became known as Masterpiece Theatre, including its appropriately majestic— and French— opening theme, Jean-Joseph Moret’s “Rondeau”, and the series’ elegant, elderly host Alistair Cooke, as well.

Nothing at all against the capable Russell Baker, the American writer-journalist who took over the hosting duties and presided for a dozen years when Cooke retired from the series in 1992, but for us the wry, magisterial Alistair Cooke in his English drawing room chair personified Masterpiece Theatre. (And I can’t resist mentioning here that Mom was thoroughly charmed by the sweetly silly Sesame Street send-up, Monsterpiece Theatre, featuring one “Alistair Cookie.”)

Closet romantic that I am, I always preferred Masterpiece Theatre’s costume and historical epics, a genre the Brits seem to produce with impeccable ease. The standouts were Lillie starring the cool, beautiful Francesca Annis as the Edwardian “Professional Beauty” Lillie Langtry and featuring Peter Egan, quite wonderful as her ardent friend and champion, the witty—and doomed—Oscar Wilde; Elizabeth R, with the commanding and customarily brilliant Glenda Jackson in the title role; and Therese Raquin, starring a spellbinding Kate Nelligan as the ruined heroine of Emile Zola’s psychological horror story of passion and Gothic revenge.

I also enjoyed every minute of the Masterpiece 1996 production of The Fortunes and Misfortunes of Moll Flanders. The sensual, curvaceous Alex Kingston—like her countrywoman Glenda Jackson not conventionally lovely, but blessed with strong, striking features—was letter perfect as the desperate and determined 18th century adventuress. Some critics found Kingston’s periodic asides to the camera/audience distracting, but so compelling is she as Dafoe’s bawdy anti-heroine that, for me, the device really worked. Kingston was also terrific on ER as the talented surgeon and unapologetic flirt—loved that tony Brit accent, didn’t you?—Dr. Elizabeth Corday, back in the days when ER was still appointment television.

Oh, and speaking of ER, can I just quickly get something out of the way?

There is only one Dr. “McDreamy” and that was/is bad boy Doug Ross aka George Clooney. Okay? I am willing to make allowances for those of you old enough to remember fondly the young (and closeted) Richard Chamberlain as Dr. Kildare—he was, in his day, pretty darn hunky. But the modern “McDreamy” is and always will be ER pediatrician Dr. Doug, so enough already about Patrick Whatshisname.

Thank you.

So what were your Masterpiece Theatre favorites? The music, the production values, the actors, the accents— surely over the years you’ve been captivated by something from this wonderful anthology series, which also offered a number of non-costume dramas, by the way, like the dark political satire House of Cards, starring a reptilian Ian Richardson, and in time included American works by James Agee, Willa Cather and Langston Hughes (whose Cora Unashamed kicked off MT’s “American Collection” in 2000).

I can tell you there seemed to be a Masterpiece Theatre for every member of my family. Brother Joe, whose television preferences seemed strictly limited to live sports, Star Trek (the Shatner-Nimoy-Kelley original) and Doctor Who (the Tom Baker period, preferably), never missed a single episode of I, Claudius, riveted by the malignant lunacy of John Hurt’s Caligula, the scheming cruelty of Sian Phillips’s Livia, and Derek Jacobi’s wretched, twitching, cunning Claudius, the ultimate political survivor.

Even my Gunsmoke and S.W.A.T.-loving Grandma found her Masterpiece favorites, first in the irresistibly addictive Upstairs, Downstairs, easily the most celebrated of the MT offerings, the superior British soap opera that chronicled the fortunes, setbacks, scandals and celebrations of the wealthy Bellamy family and their household staff; and later in the suspenseful Danger UXB, this one right up her tough-men-in-jeopardy alley, a bleak and gritty account of the unforgiving hazards faced by a British bomb disposal unit during the terrifying days and nights of the London Blitz.

Danger UXB starred Anthony Andrews of Brideshead Revisited fame, the classy 1981 PBS series based on the Evelyn Waugh novel (this one a Great Performances rather than Masterpiece Theatre production); you may recall his Brideshead co-star was none other than Jeremy Irons, another Masterpiece alum (The Pallisers; Love for Lydia) and Oscar-winning movie star.

My mom, to this day an MT fan, was the one who over the years embraced most of its numerous offerings— from The Six Wives of Henry VIII to Shoulder to Shoulder to The Jewel in the Crown to Jeeves & Wooster to the Prime Suspect series and many more in between— beginning with the 1969 forerunner The Forsyte Saga, the very first British serial broadcast in the U.S. That show, a black and white dramatization of the books of John Galsworthy, was such a hit with American audiences—who up to that point had never seen anything quite like it—that its success rescued the struggling PBS and made the omnibus Masterpiece Theatre not only possible but necessary.

Saturday, July 26, 2008

Sammy and Peter and Debbie and Cliff

I am just like John Lennon as I type this—no, really—preferring having the television on as background while I write or read or do almost anything, really (I did say almost anything, people)--I am half-watching a Flix channel showing of the 1968 movie Salt and Pepper, starring Sammy Davis, Jr. and Peter Lawford as hipster nightclub owner buddies who somehow--how do these odd things happen?--get mixed up in espionage and murder when all they're trying to do is have a happenin' time in Swinging London at their Studio 54-prototype club and chase dames, I mean chicks, I mean birds.

Davis is Charles Salt and Lawford is Christopher Pepper--cute, no? And the pace is zippy enough--almost too zippy, the plot is more than a little confusing--and Davis energetically sings a couple of forgettable mod-pop songs and is really quite funny (Did he win the toss to get the best scripted jokes or are these ad-libs?) but something is missing here and it's not just plot coherence.

As I say, Sammy Davis is entertaining--Peter Lawford is nearly a wooden plank by comparison--but overall this film seems to me another example of the panicked desperation of sixties era Big Hollywood to produce movies that sixties era big audiences would want to see.

But who precisely were "sixties era audiences" big or otherwise? That must have been the dilemma. There was an older, more conservative, ticket-buying audience that shouldn't be ignored, but by '68 the youth movement was in full roar and studio executives, mindful of this, were apparently caught in the middle of trying to appeal to both groups.

The too-frequent result was studio offerings like Salt and Pepper, which tried too hard to have it both ways, casting older, familiar, established stars in roles that should have gone to 25 year-olds. Lawford particularly, with his graying sideburns, triple chins and tired, pouchy eyes looks faintly ridiculous coming on to all the lithesome, twenty-something "birds" around him; yi-ikes--you wince to watch it.

Also, you simmer. You watch how Davis is being used in this movie and you contemplate all those white studio executives, resplendent in their Nehru jackets, love beads, and peace medallions who were nevertheless too threatened, obviously, by the notion of black males as sexy leading men--even black males like flinty little Rat-Pack mascot and Nixon-hugging Sammy Davis, Jr. Sammy is therefore sweetly dissed by all the lovely dollies he approaches, and relegated to the role of mouthy Court Jester.

Oh, well. We could at least claim the elegant, dignified Sidney “They call me MR. Tibbs!” Poitier—though not in this movie, unfortunately—and Jim Brown, in 100 Rifles, and Richard Roundtree, in Shaft, and Fred "The Hammer" Williamson, in Black Caesar, were just around the corner...

Earlier I was flipping back and forth from this movie to the HBO broadcast of 1963's My Six Loves starring Debbie Reynolds as a "big Broadway star" who finds and adopts six adorable sibling urchins. Yes, well.

I'd noticed this movie in the programming grid earlier in the week and set the reminder function for it, thinking I would enjoy it as a nice bit of Saturday morning nostalgia...

Not so much, as it turns out.

Maybe the problem is that now I'm looking at these films from the perpetually pissed-off and jaded perspective of the grown-up me rather than from the perspective of the wistful, movie-loving adolescent I once was. Because I've seen this movie, or parts of it, before now I’m sure—and I remember liking it a whole lot better.

I guess back then I just took it all at face value--and enjoyed the great Eileen Heckart's wisecracks and deadpan observations. (As witty sidekicks go, Eileen Heckart may be the best time you'll have in any movie that Eve Arden didn't get to first.) Probably I also got a kick out of the pre-Fugitive David Janssen as Debbie’s exasperated manager-suitor. Now, however--though I still adore Heckart--I'm too aware of the film's nastily manipulative message to women everywhere to Stop!! Stop all this independent career and self-reliance nonsense and go get married and have babies like God and them meant you to!

I mean, there's handsome Cliff Robertson as the neighborhood minister and part-time handyman (Uh, what?) who starts off by trying to help a conflicted Debbie cope with her instant orphan family, but by the end of the movie finally barks at her and the blustery Janssen: "It's about time she stopped being a star and started being a woman!" or words to that effect, clearly expressing the viewpoint of the movie's director, producer, writer, production team, Krafts Services crew, every hetero male in the audience, and--I will bet all of you any amount of money--Reynolds's real-life hubby of the time, effectively guilt-tripping our heroine into motherhood, marriage and rock-solid suburban conformity.

And just to reassure Robertson, herself, her husband and the rest of us that she is indeed a "normal" woman with "normal" needs, Debbie Reynolds actually apologizes to him for her epic impertinence in thinking her life actually belonged to her, and then do you know what she does? She shuts up and does as she's told, letting Reverend Robertson be the boss he was meant to be. They kiss. And the wonderfully cynical Heckart, her plain speaking best friend-secretary, a single career gal herself, mind you, rejoins with wry and weary gratitude that "it's about time."

Jesus.

Oh, I know how I sound, but look, it's so complicated! I love sixties movies, even bad sixties movies, sometimes, especially, bad sixties movies--and there were obviously a LOT of bad sixties movies--and yet, increasingly, when I try to relax and enjoy them, knowing full well what I'm in for, I nevertheless keep tripping over the simple-minded sexism, false pieties, and (usually lurking in the background somewhere) racism and smarmy homophobia of the times. Consequently, I often wind up too irritated to stay with a My Six Loves or a Salt and Pepper from start to fin—

Ooh, wait a sec! AMC is showing The Pleasure Seekers! Isn't that... Ann-Margret..?

Friday, July 25, 2008

MWW, MPGs and the People Who Love Them

There's actually a name for it now. Did you know that? (Saw it in Wikipedia, so it must be true.)

MWWS--the Missing White Women Syndrome, alternately known as the Missing Pretty Girl Syndrome, refers of course to the disproportionate amount of news coverage--not only but most particularly broadcast news coverage--given to missing/presumed dead white females of varying ages, that is if they're Caucasian, upper or middle-class, and button-cute little ones, like Britain's Maddie McCann (The new Jon-Benet, or so the tabloids and ratings-hungry MSM have no doubt fervently hoped) and Orlando, Fla. toddler Caylee Anthony; or slender, model-pretty teens and twenty-somethings like--oh, well, the choice is wide. There've been so many over just the last few years.

Natalee Holloway. Laci Peterson. Chandra Levy. Plus Amber, Amy, Tiffany, Tyler, Blair, Bree, Bitsy--oh, you know what I mean: A bunch of other names less nationally known but all reliably Cute and Caucasian. And let's don't forget stunning Utah teenager Elizabeth Smart, one of the very lucky few found alive (and apparently reasonably well) who, upon learning that her kidnapping ordeal was going to be dramatized in a cable-TV movie, reportedly petitioned her parents to let her play herself. Mr. and Mrs. Smart--or their PR reps--wisely turned her down.

Meanwhile, the family and friends of black females such as Syracuse U. student April Gregory, NY student Romona Moore and twenty-somethings Tamika Huston and Latoyia Figueroa were faced with something like polite indifference from police and/or local and national media, even as both law enforcement and press were aggressively investigating the disappearances of white girls at the same time. The African-American women were young and pretty, too--and Ms. Figueroa was even five months pregnant when she vanished--but not enough, apparently, to be considered worthy by the MSM who seem prepared to allow serious time and resources only for the kind of victims readers and audiences--presumably white readers and audiences--would more easily "relate to" (read: "give a damn about").

This discriminatory practice--sorry, discretionary inclination--has become so prevalent that network dramas like CBS's Without a Trace, and by now probably one or several of the Law and Order series, have devoted storylines to it.

Accordingly, if your minority, poor or working class, single-parented, possibly drug-addicted lesbian daughter--or (gay or straight, but especially gay) son--goes missing with foul play suspected, gather your friends and neighbors, post the flyers, and do your best--and best of luck--because you won't get much meaningful assistance from the powers that be. Even if police and local media take an interest it will likely be only momentary, a perfunctory mention at most. Come on, be fair: there are soooo many minority young getting snuffed or going missing these days who can reasonably be expected to keep track?

And the next Maddie or Natalie could be just around the corner, after all...

Thursday, July 24, 2008

Not Tonight

Was going to write but irritable all day today--just about everything--work, home, news reports--has pissed me off. Maybe tomorrow.

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Larry King And The "Limits of Tolerance"

Just re-read that Newsweek cover report about the murder of 15 year old Larry King by 14 year old Brandon McInernery. It's all so heartbreaking, infuriating.

Both these kids were failed utterly by the adults that surrounded them--parents, teachers, school officials--and one boy is dead and another facing the possibility of a lengthy prison term, because of that failure. In the face of his death, the teachers who spoke to the press insist that they tried to support the complicated, boundary-pushing Larry, but I wonder for how many that is really true. He was different and now he is dead. I'm sure there's quite a bit of damage control going on right now, personally and officially, as everyone tries to put the best face on their own involvement (or lack thereof) in this tragedy.

No doubt the only thing everyone can agree on right now is that what happened should not have happened, that things should never have reached this point. But, beyond either ignoring Larry King or getting angry at him for behavior they didn't understand and didn't know how best to respond to, where were all these grown-ups as things slowly unraveled for Larry and Brandon? Were they standing out in a field somewhere, watching cloud formations?

Put aside for the moment the McInerney boy and his issues (and ease of access to a loaded gun)--where were the adults when kids started mistreating and ostracizing King when he began coming out at age 10? It wasn't just Larry King that needed help navigating the rough seas of puberty and sexual and social identity. All those classmates who taunted him--the girl who started the "Burn Book" to punish King, the boys who "pushed him around" in the locker rooms--were obviously coping, badly, with their own identity questions, anxieties and fears. Larry King could not have been the only gay, or eccentric, or defiantly flamboyant, or troubled, kid in the various schools he attended--what happened to those kids? What's happening to them now?

King is said to have been a "bully" and to have bullied the boy who would be his executioner. Where was the outrage--the acknowledgement--of the bullying King experienced?

How Brandon McInerney chose finally to resolve the problem of Larry's allegedly determined and unwanted attentions was horrifyingly inappropriate--to say the absolute least--and he should, he must, face the consequences for his actions. That said, it's impossible, reading the Newsweek piece, not to feel some sympathy for him as well, and anger at all the adults around him who apparently didn't take seriously enough his rising embarrasment and distress and intervene in a way that might have defused what was becoming an explosive situation. If McInerney is tried and sentenced as an adult, the harassment he experienced from a lovestruck classmate will be nothing compared to what eventually he may be forced to confront in a prison setting.

And what of the school's lesbian (former) assistant principal, Joy Epstein, who counseled and befriended King? According to the Newsweek story she was not out to the students, but she was to fellow staffers (Epstein kept a photograph of her life partner in full view on her desk), not all of whom were accepting, and it seems she is now being looked upon with great suspicion--indeed, if it's not King himself being blamed for his death, it is Epstein, with both parents (including Larry King's father, Greg, who was accused by his son of abuse, leading to Larry's temporary removal to a group home) and disapproving faculty accusing her of having had an "agenda."

Ah, yes--the fabled "gay agenda." Apparently any gay teacher or adult with access to kids who is supportive of gay kids particularly, counseling them on their rights, is obviously attempting... what? World domination?

Seriously, what's it supposed to "mean" when teachers are proudly and openly gay and positively acknowledge queer and questioning kids who come to them for support and advice? What would they be doing that is supposedly so inappropriate, so suspect? Are out gay teachers and counselors truly expected to counsel gay kids not to be? Not to be what? Not to be out and proud? Not to be gay? And what exactly is the "agenda"? I've yet to hear (or read) an answer to any of these questions from any such accusers that I have not found convoluted, irrational, and downright hysterical.

Poor Larry King. For all the turbulence of his young life, he seemed to me a bright, imaginative, and incredibly ballsy teenager who just might--with a lot more sympathetic support, guidance and protection and a lot less over-reactive judgement--one day have had the fabulous life he dreamed of.

As it is, now he--and we--will never know.

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

From Matthew to Lawrence

Oh, God, no--it's Matthew Shepard all over again.

It isn't, actually, but that was my immediate, visceral reaction to the cover of this week's (July 18th) Newsweek. The cover story is about the murder of gay middle-schooler Lawrence King and the deeper you get into the reporting the queasier and angrier you feel--among other reasons you're left with the distinct impression that King, the victim, portrayed for the most part in the article as a pathetic troublemaker, is essentially to blame for what happened to him.

He was shot dead in a computer lab by classmate Brandon McInerney who, after aiming directly at King's head and firing (twice), calmly tossed the gun to the floor and walked out of the room, to be apprehended minutes later by police.

I feel so distressed--so unsettled and depressed and pissed off--that I can't pull my thoughts together right now. I need to learn more about this awful story; I need to think about what's being said here.

More later.

Sunday, July 20, 2008

Letter to an X-Friend

So how long has it been now?

Six years? Seven? I know I was still at The Lite when the friendship came crashing down around us—was it in June that we, that everything, stopped? I could be misremembering the timeline, but I think it was June. (I’m really coming to dislike the month of June.)

Brendan Lemon’s closeted ballplayer boyfriend. That’s what touched it off, the Out Magazine editor letter. He wrote about the difficulties of being openly gay and trying to maintain a relationship with someone who was not, especially someone with a public profile. The letter caused a sensation in the gay press, was picked up by the mainstream press, and as the guessing game of the ballplayer’s identity commenced, op-ed pieces started appearing in publications that seldom if ever bothered to report or comment upon queer issues of any kind.

You and I seemed to draw different lessons from the controversy, unable to agree even on whether or not Lemon should ever have brought up the matter publicly, though I think we were slowly becoming aware, long before then, that we seemed not to be on the same page about many things to do with gay.

The e-mails between us got stronger, angrier (typically, mine got lengthier). That was our mistake, I realized even then. Instead of tabling the debate about Lemon, his mystery man and whatever and whoever else was getting dragged into the squabble (Jackie Robinson, Rock Hudson, the Brady dad Robert Reed) until we could see one another and talk more calmly over coffee, or dinner, or a bookstore browse, we kept slugging it out electronically, each of accusing the other of not seeing it, both of us more emotionally invested in our viewpoints than we were willing or able to admit.

I know I was. I was absolutely convinced I was right and you were a pigheaded idiot who couldn’t admit when he was wrong. Though I couldn’t actually see you, I could feel your back stiffening with each hit of the send key, until finally you accused me of laughing at you—I realized later you meant “mocking” you—and said we couldn’t be friends anymore.

I’d rolled my eyes at this, exasperated. Not friends anymore? Come on, what was he talking about? Alright, so I’d gone a bit—maybe more than a bit—overboard in my determination to mow down his resistance. So maybe he was right in his accusation that this wasn’t a spirited exchange of ideas any longer (if it ever was) and I had let myself get too gleeful about winning what had turned into a fight. He was still being a drama queen—a melodrama queen—with this relations between us are at an end stuff; he doesn’t mean it. Not really.

But you did.

Even with my semi-conciliatory reply—recognizing at last that I had gone too far, in the execution of my argument at least, if not its substance—you refused to budge. Me too. I waited, not too bothered that the days were turning to weeks, thinking after all that we both needed the cooling off period, and sure that at the end of it you would at last reply, or that one of us would pick up the phone, that we would pick up and stagger forward, the connection between us frayed but not broken, our friendship ultimately stronger having been tested. Like... like... Mary and Rhoda. (Fine. Then you think of somebody.)

It didn’t happen. You didn’t write and we didn’t call and the silence between us grew heavier, lengthened. We didn’t speak; we never saw each other again. And it has been—six years now? Seven? Longer than that?

I didn’t expect that outcome, did you? I knew we could both be stubborn; as I realized the weeks were becoming months I grew uneasy, complaining to Connie about what a baby you were being, and how I should not have to plead for the restoration of our old camaraderie, no matter how much I missed it. Eventually I reached for my sharpest, finest pen to write you longhand; I sat down at my computer, searching for just the right font. I picked up my phone and made ready to dial, determined to end the stalemate. Each time I backed away, uncertain of my welcome, and feeling vaguely…idiotic.

It’s never a good thing when, instead of getting wiser as you get older, you realize you’re only finding new ways to disappoint yourself (and others).

Maybe you feel that too?

Saturday, July 19, 2008

Pure Poppycock

Last March, the Today show featured a segment on the phenomenon--I'm pretty sure we can just go ahead and call this a phenomenon--of something called Purity Balls, in which fathers take their daughters on a date. No, really. In the course of the festivities and a ceremony involving—I swear I am not making this up—roses, swords and a large white cross, the girls promise to remain “pure”, that is, to not have sex until they get married, and even signing “pledges” to that effect. This thing must really be taking off, because there it is again in the July 28th issue of Time magazine, an article titled "The Pursuit of Purity" by Nancy Gibbs.

I don’t know what these people—I'd assumed them to be Bible Belt conservatives but possibly not—are thinking. Maybe they aren’t thinking. Surely if the mothers and fathers who endorse the concept of purity pledges considered more carefully the full ramifications they’d not let their children—daughters only, is it?—anywhere near it. I mean, it’s disturbing on the face of it.

And creepy. Are these parents so freaked by modern culture, and so uncomfortable with adolescent—especially female—sexuality that the best, the only, way they know how to respond is by psychologically handcuffing their girls to unfair and ultimately unrealistic promises of chastity? (And am I right to be skeptical that the sexuality of sons is not considered nearly so problematic? The Nancy Gibb piece hints at more pledges to come, this time involving boys.)

When I read about teenage sexual behaviors the statistical data suggests that assertions that kids are having sex at younger ages is simply not true, yet the promos for the “Today” show piece inferred the opposite. So what’s going on? Are worried parents misreading or reading too much into their youngster's fascination with the flagrant trampiness of Paris and her acolytes? But even if the concern is entirely justified, the notion that parents can protect their daughters by extracting promises of sexual purity from them seems to me somehow deluded, wrongheaded.

The girls will sign of course, the majority of them no doubt happily, eagerly. Kids love their parents after all, trust that their moms and dads know best and have their best interests at heart, and they want to please them and make them proud. But how long will it be before these daughters are sorry, even resentful, that they went along with such an agreement? What, in real-life terms, will it mean to a young girl to promise to wait until marriage for the experience of physical intimacy?

The dads interviewed for the Time article, including co-inventor of the purity pledge balls, Randy Wilson, insisted that the pledges are not just about sex, and that focusing solely on that aspect misses the point. They spoke of the need to commit more fully as fathers to their children, to protect their girls and be better role models for their families and communities. Well, yes--who could argue with that? I read those words and thought how commendable, how absolutely admirable, how right.

Then I kept reading, noting that one of the daughters attending the purity ball with her daddy was only 4 years old; also in attendance was a 10 year old who shyly admitted she had no idea what the purity pledge meant beyond promising her dad "to be a virgin until you are married and not have a lot of boyfriends." And according to that Today show segment, 11 year olds are being asked to sign these pledges.

That figures. I remember—more vividly than I would have expected from this distance—being an 11 year old. Though I developed crushes left and right, at least one of them quite erotic, the mechanics of sex, the actual doing of the deed, was a remote and vaguely icky mystery I was in no particular hurry to solve. Few girls so young would object to agreeing to a purity restriction, especially when it's her favorite boyfriend—every little girls first crush—asking it of her and doing so at an emotional, elaborate, Cinderella-type party at that. (Had my dad cared enough to stick around and escort me to such a lavish event I would have swooned, agreeing to absolutely anything he requested, up to and including always calling my stepmother “Mom”.)

A few pertinent questions, though: What happens when a naive, starry-eyed 11 year old playing dress-up turns 15, turns 16, 18, 20—will she still want to keep such a promise? Will she feel able to? Will she feel she should even have to?

Will these pledges really make the young girls who sign on to them stronger, more confident and wiser in their choices—or will they remain perennial adolescents incapable of making choices of their own? Is it understood that as of a certain magic age—which would be what, by the way, and decided by whom?—these daughters are released from the pledges they signed, expected finally to decide their personal lives for themselves? How do they do that, though, when up to that point their most intimate decisions were in the hands of someone else, someone who with the passage of time may no longer seem so heroic and infallible?

And what sort of women will these pledges create?

What happens to the “bad daughters” who rebel and decide to have sex? They promised after all; on an evening unlike any other they pledged to their devoted daddies (or daddy substitutes) "not to" until marriage. What if they can’t keep that promise? Will they sneak around, riven with guilt and shame? And will they delude themselves that if they don’t take any birth control or other precautions they’ve got wiggle room to characterize their sexual encounters as “accidental” and their purity thus “technically” intact? What about the resultant risk of STDs, HIV, AIDS? And how many unplanned pregnancies will be the result of such a strategy, and who raises those daughters?

And what are the options for the “good girls”? Will they ease their consciences by feeling compelled to marry the first guy they fuck, regardless of whether or not either partner truly wants to marry? What if they’re both too young? What if daddy doesn’t consider the groom-to-be acceptable husband material? Does the good daughter elope, hoping for the best? Or does she marry the man daddy signs off on immaterial of his appeal for her? Just what kind of “personal” life can such a young woman hope to have when that life is essentially chosen for her?

Purity fathers may be convinced that they are really only doing their duties and looking after their little girls, but don’t these virginity pledges ultimately translate into an exercise in the power of male prerogative, and an insistence on a certain kind of cultural conformity? Aren’t they really an attempt to return American society to a supposedly more morally upright time--such as when men literally owned their wives and children?

At purity balls the fathers also take a pledge, to protect their girls—but who protects the girls from the fathers? What happens to the “pure” daughters of men who are sexual predators? or wife beaters? or self-loathing closet cases? or lying philanderers?

Is it possible that purity pledges really represent not just reliable parental squeamishness about pubescent sexuality in general, but also a new wrinkle in the same old determined resistance to issues of gender identity and alternative sexual preferences in particular?

Aren’t the purity daughters (and presumably, in the near future, sons) being asked—required, actually—to be not merely chaste but conventional? predictable? traditional? heterosexual??

Just asking...

Friday, July 18, 2008

Movie Night

So much I wanted to post tonight but it will have to wait--TCM is showing 1960's The Fugitive Kind starring a coiled, mascara-ed Marlon Brando as The Drifter, and Joanne Woodward and Anna Magnani as The Women In His Life, with able support from Maureen Stapleton, Victor Jory and R.G. Armstrong. Brando is still potent, still Brando. Love Joanne Woodward in anything, even bad things. And Magnani--I never see enough of her; love that lived-in face, the best this side of Jeanne Moreau.

Sidney Lumet directed, the great Tennessee Williams adapted the screenplay from his play. Small town, Deep South, all in gothic, glorious black and white. (I mean the film stock. Don't overreach.)

Anyway, this needs my full attention and I happen to have popcorn in the house.

More later, y'all.

Thursday, July 17, 2008

Mass Media Madness and Other Things

I guess I have my nerve needling Bill M. about the time gap between posts. What's today? Thursday? Is it still Thursday? Is it still July?

It's just... ever have one of those periods when there's so much on your mind that you can't untangle and sort it out to get it down on "paper" in a coherent way? Or something swirls around in your head that you'd really like to set down, but in the moment you're just not able to write? You're traveling. You're elbow-deep in work. You're literally in the middle of a conversation. Your nose is in a book--a good one--and something in the text triggers a thought that starts nagging at you; now you're torn: do you close the book and grab notebook and pen to scribble your thoughts or stay with the story?

Here's one thing that's on my mind: I'm still pissed off about that New Yorker "radical/Muslim" Obama cover. The minute I saw it my jaw dropped--and I'm sitting here still feeling blindsided by its nasty cluelessness. All's fair in the historically down and dirty game of national politics I guess, this kind of thing is not new, I know, but nevertheless what the hell? This is THE NEW YORKER we're talking about--the folks who supposedly like Obama, the ones who are on our side. This came from so out of left field (or maybe more accurately "right field".) What were they thinking? Should they have run it?

Well...I'm uncomfortable with censorship, with saying things can't be said or shown. And the NY editorial management has defended its July 21st cover insisting it was meant to satirize Republican demonization of the Obamas. But how many people looking at that cover can we trust to understand that? Images, whether photographic or illustrated, are powerful, more powerful even than any words used to explain or justify them. (Just ask the Danish) I don't remember at the moment what the reported percentage is, but a significant number of American voters actually believe Barack Obama is a Muslim. Which shouldn't matter. But, especially in these post-9/11 times, and in an election cycle, it does.

Oh, and there's also the matter of that Orange County, Florida billboard, the one with the image of the burning, crumbling WTC towers and the words "Please Don't Vote For a Democrat" on it--I know I shouldn't be, regardless I'm dumbstruck, speechless.

Except to ask: how low? How much fucking lower can anyone go? That billboard was reportedly commisioned by a St. Cloud businessman-musician named Mike Meehan, who also advertises on his website a CD--yours for only $5--called "The Republican Song" which includes the chorus "Don't vote for a Democrat". I understand a video is also available. Well, of course. And do you suppose either bothers to acknowledge, even peripherally, that the WTC tragedy happened on the watch of a REPUBLICAN administration?

I'll go out on what is probably a very short limb here and say no.

Monday, July 14, 2008

Marnie and Sophia

Oh, hell! Just a quick-fast addendum to my previous long-ass letter:

The enclosed photocopy is taken from the original source for what has become one of my very favorite of Alfred Hitchcock’s movies, Marnie.

Marnie began life as a 1961 novel by British author Winston Graham, with all the characters and settings originally placed in England. I was delighted to discover that this decades-old book was sitting on one of the CPL’s branch shelves and immediately sent for it and enjoyed reading it—in the book, Marnie herself is the narrator—until I came to page 100 and came across that startling bit of dialogue between Marnie and Mark Rutland, the love interest (played with vivid intensity in the 1964 movie by a ruggedly sexy Sean Connery).

You can see where I’ve highlighted the part that threw me for a loop. I gasped, blinked, re-read it and put the book down for a minute, wondering if I really just read what I just read.

See what you think. Marnie was written by a white male, and in the complacently racist Britain of ’61 at that... On the other hand, Americans have often been befuddled by British-isms and English slang—could the word really have meant something different..? Perhaps..?

Still. Wow. Rather shocking, at least to me…

Okay! That’s it! We’re done!

Ciao for now Michelangelo! TCM is having a Sophia Loren festival this month—at this moment I’m watching one of her best, 1963’s Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, as I type this. Great movie, even if you don’t understand a word of Italian, and Loren, then 28, is at the height of her astounding Neapolitan beauty—no. I tell a lie, as the English like to say.

Loren is stunning here, especially in this, "Mara," the best-remembered of the trio of tales, in which she sends favorite co-star Marcello Mastroianni into screeching paroxysms of ecstasy as she performs the playful striptease seen ‘round the sixties cinema world; but she truly reached the summit of her magnificence several years later in 1967’s exquisite Italian fairy tale More Than A Miracle opposite Omar Sharif, who if anything is almost as pretty as Loren. The first time I ever saw More Than A Miracle, back in 1994 when I was living on 47th and Lake Park, my jaw dropped, literally, when Loren first appeared on screen. I’d never seen her so ravishingly beautiful. Those lips! Those eyes! Those cheekbones! (Angelina who???)


Anyway—later, babe. Ciao Bella.

Saturday, July 12, 2008

More Later

Too busy--no , too distracted--actually both--to write much of anything just now. More later. I think. I promise.

Friday, July 11, 2008

Second Thoughts

Wow. Yesterday's post was kinda harsh, maybe too much so to leave it up.

I'll decide tomorrow. Too tired tonight.

Wednesday, July 9, 2008

Letter to an Old Friend

I’m listening to my ‘70s nostalgia folder on Windows Media Player as I type, and Blood, Sweat and Tears is playing. This song is one of my old adolescent favorites—"Lucretia Mac Evil". Remember that one? I used to play my BS&T Greatest Hits album back in the day and whenever this song came on I would dance provocatively around the house, pretending to be a siren luring incautious men to their doom. You should have seen me, or perhaps it’s just as well you didn’t—you might have gotten hurt laughing yourself silly.

Now Lynyrd Skynyrd’s "Sweet Home Alabama" is playing—and it’s funny. Not the song; I mean I remember how much I loved this song the first time I heard it, and how appalled I felt upon later realizing that it was basically a redneck defense of the Old South.

Actually, that may not be a fair assessment of the song, but"Sweet Home Alabama" was written as a "backatcha", a thumb of the nose, a direct challenge (Well, I heard Mr. Young sing about her... Well, I heard ole Neil put her down...) to Neil Young’s "Alabama", a stinging criticism of entrenched Southern attitudes, from his monster 1972 album "Harvest", though "Heart Of Gold" was the album's big single, with James Taylor and Linda Ronstadt wailing back-up. Upon its release Joey bought "Harvest" and played that song over and over and over again (that one and the bittersweet "The Needle and the Damage Done") and I got good and sick of it, but the CD is sitting on one of my book shelves now.

Nowadays you hear "Sweet Home Alabama" and think not of the Deep South, race relations or rebel yells but of... Popeye’s chicken.

Unnhhh.

Isn’t it depressing the way Madison Avenue has latched onto Boomer and Gen X popular music, using one iconic sixties (and, increasingly, seventies) pop song after another to sell cars, fast food, beer, and you name it? This is not by any means a recent development, I know, but the practice seems in hyper-drive these days. I’m constantly grousing to my mother (who in response usually just chuckles sympathetically) that when I hear the Beatle’s "Revolution"--reportedly John Lennon’s wry response to The Rolling Stones’ swaggering "Street Fighting Man"-- or Marvin Gaye’s sultry"Let’s Get It On" I don’t want to think of overpriced sneakers and Reese’s Peanut Butter Chocolate Bunnies!

Remember the commercials of sixties TV, Mike, and songs like "Kids" from the stage/film musical Bye Bye Birdie being used to sell floor wax? That one and "Will Everyone Here Kindly Step To The Rear (And Let A Winner Lead The Way)", from the (short-lived) stage musical How Now Dow Jones, which was used to sell Plymouth cars? And who could forget (well, okay, I haven't) "Hey, Big Spender", from Sweet Charity, to sell cigarillos—back when tobacco products were still being advertised on prime-time television, that is.

I loved those musicals, by the way. Loved them. At that time I especially loved any musical that starred or featured Gwen Verdon and Liza Minnelli. Redhead. Flora the Red Menace. New Girl in Town. I spent my whole 14th year in my bedroom pretending to be either a quavery, broken-hearted Gwen Verdon plaintively singing "Where Am I Going?" or a brassy Liza Minnelli belting "Cabaret" and "Liza With a Z".

Those songs coming out of the tradition of American musical theatre made the use of them for advertising purposes—to my mind anyway, you may not agree—more logical and acceptable, somehow.

The most memorable modern pop music reflects periods of flux and change in our lives and in the larger culture, don’t you think so? And though many of us adore musical theatre, I don’t think we have such exquisitely emotional memories attached to those kinds of songs, which is why I suppose I particularly resent the corporate co-opting of sixties and seventies pop, rock and soul music. That's the good stuff, the stuff that is, as one of the classic rock stations here in Chicago likes to advertise itself, the "soundtrack of our lives".

So whenever a TV commercial appears that features yet another memorable pop, soul or rock and roll song from my youth, I feel invaded, like something intensely personal is being yanked away from me. Back in the early eighties veteran rockers Neil Young and John Fogerty united to produce and perform "This Note’s For You", a protest song satirizing the selling out of classic pop music. The two did some local news interviews about the issue, and also made an accompanying video for "This Note" which, I'm guessing, may have made MTV execs a tad uncomfortable because I swear the song came and went in a blink, or at least that's how I remember it. I think I saw that video twice in total—twice, maybe three times—and this during the period when I was captivated by eighties “new wave” music and videos, watching MTV constantly.

Having said all that, I’m not completely disdainful of TV commercials. In the late sixties and early seventies some of my favorite TV shows were in fact commercials--because I was a kid and what the hell did I know--but also because many of them were so entertaining and were made especially memorable by original, catchy jingles written expressly for the product. If you watch programming on the TVLand or Me-TV channel today you will from time to time see these nostalgia commercials, like the kicky black and white oldie from 1964 for Polaroid Swinger cameras (Bobby Sherman sang this one with a chirpy female back up):

Bobby Sherman: Hey! Meet the Swinger
Chirpy Girl Back-Up: Swinger
Sherman: Polaroid Swinger
CG Back-Up: Swinger
Sherman: Meet the Swinger
CG Back-Up: Swinger
Sherman: Polaroid Swinger

Chirpy Girl Back-Up: It’s quite a good camera
It’s almost alive*
It’s only nineteen dollars
And ninety-five

Sherman: Swing it up
CG Back-Up: Yeah yeah
Sherman: It says yes
CG Back-Up: Yeah yeah
Sherman: Take the shot
CG Back-Up: Yeah yeah
Sherman: Count it down
CG Back-Up: Yeah yeah
Sherman: Rip it off
CG Back-Up: Yeah!

Sherman: Meet the Swinger
Chirpy Girl Back-Up: Swinger
Sherman: Polaroid Swinger
CG Back-Up: Swinger
Sherman: Meet the Swinger… (fade-out)


* At least I think that’s what they were singing (“It’s almost alive”). If you ever catch this commercial on television, tell me what you think.

The visual for that commercial was a winter scene featuring a group of lively young people with bright Pepsodent smiles, apparently on a unisex ski trip. There was a laughing, pretty brunette in that commercial that got a lot of face time—you’d recognize her instantly as the young Ali MacGraw.

I think this was when Miss MacGraw was married to Paramount Pictures honcho Robert Evans, shortly before box-office winners like Goodbye, Columbus and Love Story lifted her into the celebrity stratosphere. She was then cast in maverick director Sam Peckinpah’s gritty crime drama The Getaway opposite Steve McQueen, the American cinema’s King Of Cool (who in reality was reportedly anything but—Steve had a LOT of issues, turns out), and thereafter created a major Hollywood scandal—and I mean a BIG scandal, my dear; not since telephoto lenses caught Liz Taylor canoodling on a beach or sun deck or whatever it was with Richard Burton during the filming of Cleopatra a decade earlier did everyone make such a fuss about marital infidelities—when Ali left Bob for Steve during the filming. Remember that? My God, I remember that; in those years I swallowed whole all those Photoplay, Modern Movies, and glossy Rona Barrett's Hollywood and Rona Barrett's Gossip magazines--pics galore! Pics for days!

But I digress.

Remember the 1969 or ‘70 Budweiser commercial? There’ve been so many Bud commercials over time that I don’t blame you if you can’t recall the one I mean, but this one featured a night club-like setting where a Marvin Gaye and Tammi Terrell-type duo crooned to each other:


He: When you say Bud
She: When you say Bud
He: You’ve said a lot of things nobody else can say
She: Mmm-yeah
He: When you say Bud
She: When you say Bud
He: You’ve gone as far as you can go to get the very best

He: There is no other one
She: Other one
He: There’s only something less
She: Something less
He: Because the king of beers
She: King of beers
Both: Is leading all the rest

Both: When you say Budweiser—
She: Say it, say it—
Both: When you say Budweiser—
She: Oh, go on and say it—
Both: When you say Budweiser—
Both: Oooh, you’ve said it all

I LOVED this commercial, Michael, and apparently I wasn’t the only one—its popularity meant it aired constantly with a slightly abbreviated version of it playing almost as frequently on AM radio. I used to walk around the 52nd and Drexel apartment humming and twisting and warbling away about Budweiser beer, the actual taste of which I couldn’t stand, though you'll recall my grandmother, Mrs. “CLOSE THE DOOR!” Wimberly, sure loved her Schlitz. Does that Budweiser jingle ring any bells with you? I don’t know if the lyrics help jog your memory or not—sometimes this kind of thing just looks so weird on the page. I’ll bet though if you heard it you’d remember.

Actually, wait—you have heard it—about five Christmases ago you gave me a wonderful CD of classic TV jingles (“TeeVee Toons: The Commercials”) and “When You Say Bud” is included, though that one is the original, extremely white-bread version sung in a sprightly up-tempo by a solo female singer, not the swingin’ soulful duet I fell in love with.

The couple in the commercial wasn’t actually Marvin Gaye and Tammi Terrell of course, but they sounded uncannily like Gaye and Terrell in their soulful call-and-response style of singing. "You’re All I Need To Get By" and "Ain’t Nothing Like The Real Thing" were huge crossover hits at or around this time and the “When You Say Bud” jingle was obviously meant to evoke those tunes.

Pointless Bit of Trivia Alert: In 1972 Sonny and Cher made a record called “When You Say Love” with lyrics written to the tune of the “When You Say Bud” jingle. That’s how popular the original jingle was (or how goofy the times were, take your pick). I remember Sonny and Cher’s “When You Say Love”—I don’t know if you do—and, young as I was, knew it was pathetic, just pathetic. I don’t think it was a hit for them either, certainly not on the order of "I Got You Babe" or "The Beat Goes On" or even the bizarre "A Cowboy’s Work Is Never Done" or the melodramatic "Bang Bang, My Baby Shot Me Down".

Well.

Enough of all this, for now, anyway.

Yesterday was my mom’s 72nd birthday—72, Mike!—and we had a nice day, though it was only the two of us. I’d like to take her and her sisters out for lunch or dinner but we’ll see—we’ll see how the money holds up--needless to say, my (ah-haha) “stimulus” rebate is long gone now (have you yet received yours?) I made a nice dinner and a cake for her, and also bought her a Sony DVD player and several DVDs. She was delighted I'm pleased to report, especially with the DVDs—a nice Bugs Bunny “premiere collection” set and the original, hilarious Jay Ward-Bill Scott cartoon “George of the Jungle”. Mom’s always loved these cartoons, partly because they’re so wonderfully drawn and the dialogue is so slyly witty--most of the puns and asides still holding up after so many years--and partly, of course, because Joey and me loved them too, when we were growing up.


See ya; Love ya—

L

Tuesday, July 8, 2008

Elizabeth the Great

Been reading all the back and forth on Bill's blog--the comments and his replies--about the great Elizabeth Taylor

Like everyone else on the planet I love the films for which Dame Liz is best known and justly celebrated... but of all possible ET movies to recall as I read the comments, for some reason I'm thinking of "X,Y and Zee", the "daring" '72 flick starring Dame Liz, Michael Caine and Susannah York, in which we are asked to believe that the logical explanation for Liz's obsession with the delectable Susannah was strictly to save her (Liz's) disintegrating marriage to the dishwater dull Caine. (Mmmm...yeah.)

Not a great film by a long shot (It was directed by Brian G. Hutton who seemed on firmer terra cotta when he was helming macho adventure stuff like "Where Eagles Dare" and "Kelly's Heroes") but I retain a perverse affection for it. For one thing Elizabeth, who had just that year turned 40, looked incredible.

I also love "Secret Ceremony", "The Sandpiper" and--of course--"Butterfield 8", for which she'd won the Oscar. (That breathy, emotional acceptance speech...) Trust me--films like these are a perfect way to spend a rainy Saturday afternoon. (Okay, an almost perfect way.)

Is "Ash Wednesday", the '73 film she made with Henry Fonda in which her character resorted to a face lift (as opposed to a steamy lesbian seduction) to rescue her faltering marriage, available on DVD now? I've never seen it but have wanted to for years... also "Divorce His/Divorce Hers" the two-part TV movie she made around the same time, with her most famous partner, Richard Burton.

And whenever I have occasion to see "Gone With the Wind", and it comes to the part where Rhett and Scarlett are sparring about their willful little daughter, Bonnie Blue, I lament once again that the child actress Elizabeth was not cast in the role--she was the perfect age and she was strikingly beautiful, with an eerie resemblance to Vivien Leigh's Scarlett. As memorable movie entrances go, that would have been a perfect role for such a legendary star :-)

Monday, July 7, 2008

Autumn Monday

Nearly 2 pm. Extremely humid and so hazy out it's like looking at the neighborhood through gauze. Not at all my kind of day.

Wish it was August, so that September would be right around the corner. I am looking forward to September, to Autumn. I'm really starting to hate this summer; it feels oppressive, stultifying, endless.

Not "hate". Too strong. There are some good days left of summer and --typically--I will regret the swiftness of their passing as winter's worst settles over the city. But there's a restlessness in me that is building, a nagging need to get going, get moving, move on, do something, make something else happen.

An image keeps popping into my head and hanging around there--it appears suddenly and without warning sometimes in the mornings, as I'm shaking off sleepiness and shuffling toward a shower, or in the middle of my workday as I'm tossing books back on shelves, or sometimes in the evenings as I'm laboring to get comfortable and give all my concentration to the book in my lap or the nonsense on my TV set--it's me briskly walking the length of Woodlawn Avenue, past all my old hang-outs, the places I used to live and the places my family used to live. The trees are blazing with color and around me the street is buzzing with activity: young mothers pushing grocery-laden strollers past chattering students slinging backpacks crammed with books, babysitters wrangling balky toddlers and Jehovah's Witnesses hawking Watchtowers, dogs straining leashes, dogs barking at postal carriers and garbage trucks, blowing, swirling leaves, churning water, swooping birds, zooming cars.

I am taking this all in, breathing deeply, savoring the cooling breeze.

Sunday, July 6, 2008

A Barb(ed) Memory

I can’t explain what happened with Barbara; please just don’t ask.

Okay, that’s… not strictly true. If I really think about it awhile, I guess I do know what happened. I may still not entirely get the “why” of it, but I pretty much know the “what.” Maybe I just don’t want to talk about this. Do you really imagine I’m looking for yet more evidence of my own callowness, my life-long penny-wise, pound-foolish idiocy?

I will say that our eventual estrangement was not her fault. Barb tried, really tried for a time, to keep current with me. She would call and leave these phone messages in her cheery voice, trying to schedule an afternoon luncheon, or evening drinks and dinner somewhere or other after work, just to get together to let me know what was going on in her life and to find out what was happening in mine—her treat, even.

For some reason, I just wasn’t having it.

The first of these calls caught me completely off guard. I hadn’t seen or spoken to Barbara Peterson in years. Alright, my second lie; I’d seen her two or three times, bespectacled and tall as Colossus, striding purposefully through the neighborhood, usually not far from the street where she used to live with her husband Ronnie and daughter Rachel.

Each time, she was so obviously lost in thought that she didn’t see me—she once actually walked right past me, eyes peering toward some middle distance destination, seemingly totally oblivious of her surroundings. To my immense relief, I will admit.

In the beginning, ever my mother’s daughter, I would do the courteous, civilized thing and return Barbara’s calls (hoping against hope as I did so that her answering machine would pick up), tentatively agreeing to meet somewhere.

Barb would call back to confirm and invariably want to chat a bit. Feeling more than a little foolish, I’d nevertheless use an almost missed rinse cycle or a burning dinner as an excuse to cut the call short, with the promise that we’d “catch up” with each other when we met.

Then a day or two before the scheduled get-together I’d call to cancel (hoping once again to get her machine), offering hazy explanations of illness, overwork, or family emergency, promising to call soon to reschedule.

And then dra-a-a-ag my feet about doing so.

She would wait a bit to hear from me and then initiate contact again, still desirous to meet, eat, and chat. After a while—I am not proud of this—I would just not respond, not even to acknowledge the call.

Not understanding what was going on, Barbara would (apparently) shrug and try again at a later time, still wanting to share with me all of the latest changes in her life and learn what was new and exciting in mine. And I—exasperated, sometimes angry—Jesus! Didn’t the woman have any other friends she could do this with? Why keep pestering me??—would erase her self-amused, meandering messages.

Occasionally, we’d discover we were both passengers on the same southbound bus. This would usually happen as one of us was about to disembark, and through a swaying throng we’d smile and nod and signal and stage whisper up and down the aisle, the understanding being that we’d get together soon.

We didn’t, of course. Not if I could help it.

Eventually Barbara did stop calling, no doubt mystified by my unresponsiveness or perhaps simply tired of my evasive bullshit. Relieved, I nonetheless felt guilty about cold-shouldering her.

But not sufficiently motivated to rectify things.

We did actually meet for a mid-day breakfast once, maybe it was twice, and on an earlier occasion for dinner at a corner restaurant not far from my apartment. (I remember this restaurant as extremely noisy, splashy with color and specializing in French cuisine; it has long since gone to that great Failed Eatery Graveyard in the sky to be replaced by—you guessed it, all of you—a Starbuck’s.)

As I recall that dinner, Barbara was scintillating with excitement about her new job, her ongoing coursework, and her hopes, expectations and worries for Rachel, now very much the (nearly) grown-up young lady. And beyond a few twinges of garden-variety jealousy I had no problem at all with listening to this litany of good fortune, or so I thought. I smiled and nodded, murmuring approvingly between bites of spinach crepe.

I’d always liked Barb after all (though not, as long as I’m being honest here, as immediately as I’d liked Ron, her sardonically funny ex-), and was genuinely happy for her that her life, which had once seemed to me so constricted, had blossomed, becoming full and promising. I was also truly interested to know what Rachel, whom as a teenager I’d baby-sat for several years, was up to now.

So what went wrong? I think the trouble started at exactly that point in the conversation where, following her breathless recitation of the latest wonderful new chapters in her life, Barb smiled, fixed me with an expectant look and questioned me about mine.

This was bad. This was seriously threatening because either I had no news to speak of, good, awful or indifferent, or because the most recent changes in my life were not especially positive ones. I really didn’t want to talk about any of it, and felt horribly ill at ease under the microscope of Barbara’s schoolmarm scrutiny.

I felt, if you must know, unworthy of her company. I felt like schlump, a freak, a loser. As I stammered a halting, abbreviated, vaguely apologetic run-down of my nothing-much week, I could feel both Barb’s concern and her disappointment in me, which only made things worse. I’d wanted to spontaneously burst into flames, to vaporize and evaporate into the air. I’d wanted to disappear.

She’d showed me a letter once, pulling it from her purse and sliding it across the table at me like it was contraband. It was from a long time male friend of hers and Ron’s, written in an elegant longhand, and it had so baffled her that she’d brought the thing with her, wanting to know what I made of it. I recall now only the gist of the letter, which was that he—no idea of the writer’s name—preferred Barb not attempt further contact with him. In his view, their friendship had reached a dead end and (or) had never been all that strong to begin with. He wished her well in all her future endeavors, etc., etc., but please just… stay away.

I was startled, both by the letter’s content and by Barbara’s decision to show it to me. It seemed an awfully personal thing to share with anyone. Mostly though, I couldn’t get over the fact of it—that it had actually even been written, I mean. Imagine receiving—no, imagine sending someone a letter telling him or her that the friendship between you—not romance, mind you, but friendship—was probably never real and was, in any case, over!

In the face of Barb’s bewilderment and (I suspected) underlying anger, I struggled to offer a comforting, sisterhood-is-strong type response, telling her what I knew she wanted to hear, which was that the guy was an insensitive jerk and she was probably well rid of him and his strange, silly-ass issues anyway. A “friend” indeed!

A friend in deed.

Which—I know, okay?—was crap, because as I was reading that letter what I was really thinking was: Wow! How cool is this? What balls, to just flat out tell someone that this relationship of whatever variety is not working, so let’s just leave it at that.

What I couldn’t tell Barb was that where she was floored and disturbed by the writer’s action, I felt I completely understood it, and quietly admired the writer for having had the moxie to do it. I sure as hell didn’t.

I mean look, as hurtful as that letter must have been for Barbara, at least the guy was honest with her or trying to be. I’d said earlier that I was fine with listening to Barb’s bubbly updates, but that wasn’t really true.

Here’s what was true: I didn’t want to know this woman anymore.

I contemplated the Barbara I’d known during my schoolgirl years with her family, remembering the resignation and melancholy beneath her resolute cheerfulness. She had suffered years trapped in a frustrating, unfulfilling job and a marriage built primarily on someone else’s notions of freedom and equality. And, my affection for its occupants notwithstanding, the dynamics of that household used to make me a little uneasy.

To begin with, it felt a little weird that I’d connected first and so strongly with Ron rather than Barb. Not sure why, except that my mom and me were then deep in the muck of that parent-child/ mother-daughter mania, and from the first, Ron was warmly empathetic and supportive.

For all his kindness, charm and generosity, though, Ron Peterson had definite issues and his behavior could be seriously off-putting from time to time. He could be cutting, sarcastic, and unbearably condescending towards his wife.

He could, in fact, become a controlling monster (verbally, that is; I never saw any evidence of physical abuse) with what seemed to me the slightest provocation. And that Ron would think nothing of acting that way right in front me made his tirades that much worse. It was as though he didn’t respect Barb enough—or me either, come to that—to keep his conflicts with her a strictly private matter.

Whenever Ron erupted I would try, as quietly as possible, to remove myself. I was careful never to show open disapproval, my own household having instilled in me a near-Pavlovian instinct toward blank passivity in the face of adult invective. Frozen, I’d listen to Ron’s nastiness with an averted face and a churning stomach, silently enraged at his spewing cruelty.

And yet.

I didn’t want to be mad at Ron, and I didn’t stay mad at him, because—when his mood was clear—I liked him. A lot. I liked his witty conversation, his droll observations, his way of making me feel like a grown-up whenever we talked. He showed me a consideration that seemed beyond him with Barbara. I tried not to dwell on that, but the irony wasn’t lost on me.

I knew that Ron appreciated my nonchalance about his bisexuality and his and Barb’s open marriage arrangement, regarding it I supposed as evidence of an impressive maturity on my part—at least on matters of sexual complexity. In truth—naïve and inexperienced little Catholic girl that I was—I was floored by it, initially anyway, especially when I learned of these intimacies not from Ron or Barbara but from a very matter-of-fact Rachel, then about five and a half years old. I’d gulped down my astonishment, deciding it was politic or something to adopt a sophisticated “whatever” -type attitude about such things, whether I truly felt that way or not.

On the other hand, “gaydar” is real. Did Ron’s gayness—yes, eventually he did come out as gay (And do bisexual married men really exist? Or is the bisexual husband thing just some convenient construct, some psycho-social way station, until these guys figure it out, own up already and move on?)—in some way signal mine, making me more comfortable with him, making us “click” with one another? Possibly. Personally, I rather doubt it.

Ron may have sensed or suspected my queerness, buried as it was under all the usual debris of fear and denial. But I was so clueless at the time, willfully so, it seems to me now, that I don’t trust the “fellow traveler” scenario.

So much for my supposed sophistication.

I was appalled at the ugly displays of Ron’s darker side. The worst of my antipathy however, must have been reserved for his target, Barbara, whose habit, at least in my presence, was to smile weakly and make sotto voce little jokes or vague ineffective protests, weird counterpoint to Ron’s whiny, hyper-critical rants. I would try not to look at Barbara, try not to watch her swallowing whole her humiliation, her pain—and surely her own welling anger.

I’d walk home in the early evenings, seriously pissed off… at Barb. She deserved what she got. She was a spineless marshmallow who would go along to get along rather than stand up to a bullying, self-obsessed husband. She would slog on year after year in a job she’d come to hate rather than take a deep breath, roll up her sleeves, and do whatever it took to find her way to a more fulfilling life. She was a wishy-washy lump, Barb. She was a waste of space.

She was me.

And then one day, she wasn’t anymore.

Time passed, we all went our several ways, and for Barbara came expensive seminars, years of specialized training and the happy discovery of a facility for a technology that was just beginning to boom. The resultant career change (and impressive salary upgrading) must have been sufficiently empowering to prompt Barbara to re-examine other aspects of her life. Eventually, she ended the marriage, sold the house, and became her daughter’s hero.

I was truly impressed with Barb’s achievements, and I wanted to be happy for her, too. But in my own life I was (still) floundering so badly that I just couldn’t relax around the “new” her—I felt she must be judging me, and I resented my nose being rubbed in all her joyful life changes.

I hated the childishness of my behavior, knowing it was as destructive to me as it must have been hurtful to Barbara. I tried to put the brakes on, tried to head off this stubborn whatever-it-was that was compelling me to shun her. I even tried to snap myself out of it by resorting to the strictly mercenary, reminding myself that, if nothing else, Barb Peterson could be an especially valuable friend to have right now: she could be a mentor to me. She’d learned a great deal; I could, I should, try to learn from her. Avoiding her was, I knew, wasting a real opportunity for professional as well as personal growth.

So why did I continue to run from her? And if it had been Ron rather than Barb who’d sought me out, would I have responded similarly?

If it’s all the same to you, I’d rather not try to answer that one. Frankly, I don’t want to even think about it.

Alright, I’ll leave you with this: On the rare occasions when just the two of us would converse—as opposed to the three of us where Ron and I would do most of the talking and joking around—Barbara, with her direct gazes and attitude of serious listening, seemed to me to be paying closer attention to whatever I said and, I felt sure, whatever I didn’t say. I’d discovered I could snow Ron, at least about some things, most of the time.

I was never sure what I could get away with, with Barb