Sometimes January and February usher in a feeling of boredom, a letdown after all the holiday activity. Not this year. What with the Golden Globes and other awards shows, my birthday, and the Super Bowl, on top of the build-up to the Olympics, there's hardly been a minute to spare. That's what happens to mythologists trying to keep their ear to the ground without falling prey to background noise. You may have run into the same thing.
My birthday? Oh, thanks, for asking. There was an unexplained visitation from someone who appeared, despite a locked outer door, to knock on my own personal door at the same time as a scheduled but cancelled appointment that morning, but as we (or at least, I) like to say around here, whatever. I got some work accomplished and enjoyed an evening out; at or around midnight, I was eating Chocolate Bourbon Pecan Pie with a friend, and I call that a success.
Social media has presented its own challenges this week, on top of the usual cultural churn. I had the intriguing experience of seeing a comment I'd posted to someone else's Facebook page disappear not only from her page but also from my own activity log, as if it had never been (actually, the entire thread disappeared). I'm not sure how that happened, and neither was the page's moderator. It smacks a little of Hermes, the god of communications, commerce, and tricks -- or it could be gremlins. I'm not sure whether Mercury is in retrograde at the moment or not, so perhaps we can't blame him.
As for the Super Bowl, I actually am not a great football fan, but after hearing about the game and its commercials from others who were watching, I decided to stick my toe in the water and at least check out the advertisements. (I recognize the Super Bowl as an important cultural ritual -- I just don't enjoy football.) I didn't see all the commercials, but of the humorous ones, my favorite was the Radio Shack spot with the '80s icons clearing out the store as Loverboy wails in the background. I commend Radio Shack for its sense of humor.
And who else showed up but Bob Dylan? Weren't we just talking about him? I've not only watched his spot several times, I've also read reviews of it, including a couple from The New Yorker, which, it seems to me, royally missed the point ("Close Read" indeed). Some reviewers acknowledge Mr. Dylan's enigmatic nature but take the ad itself at face value, as a "jingoistic" (one reviewer's term) tribute to Detroit and American-built cars. On a simple reading, this might appear to be true, but I doubt that's all there is to it because, after all . . . Jingoistic? Bob Dylan? There's also the fact that, as of last month, Chrysler is wholly owned by Fiat, an Italian company, and Fiat Chrysler is soon to be tax resident in Great Britain, according to The Wall Street Journal. I thought I detected a slight British intonation in Mr. Dylan's final pronunciation of the word "car," though it could, of course, be accidental.
Wordplay finds itself traveling some interesting byways -- weren't we just talking about foreign acquisitions of American brands? With the above facts in mind, I'm wondering whether there isn't a certain amount of irony in Mr. Dylan's delivery of the Chrysler message. This is not to take away from the pride in American craftsmanship he refers to in the commercial; I judge that to be quite real enough. But taken with the film noirish darkness permeating some of the ad's scenes and the somber rendering of Mr. Dylan's "Things Have Changed" that forms the soundtrack, I sense something more complex at work.
What one reviewer took as a pastiche of typical scenes of Americana seems a bit more ambiguous to me. Someone peering through blinds at a darkened street . . . a pair of eyes seen in a rearview mirror . . . a person draped in a flag, at the ocean's edge . . . a diner customer whose smiling thanks looks a bit like a grimace . . . a rather anxious-looking baby in the arms of its mother . . . oh, look, there's Marilyn Monroe . . . a tattoo customer attempting to duplicate on her own skin the original Rosie the Riveter . . . a rather savage young woman, running wild along a ridgeline . . . a cowboy falling from a horse . . . fast traffic in a narrow tunnel, seen from two angles . . . scenes of the road (I've been out there. It does look like that.) . . . a city viewed from above . . . a partially thawed river.
And there's the finale, which features Mr. Dylan, in character as the auto spokesman, leaning on a pool table and declaring, with a group of workers behind him, that "We will build your car." One of the workers, nodding slightly, wears a big hat and bears a weird, blurry resemblance to an officiant in clerical garb as the background goes out of focus. Those scenes of baseball pitches and athletic cheerleaders might seem more innocent if it weren't for glimpses of characters and situations that seem to have strayed out of Double Indemnity, The Hustler, or The Road more than Norman Rockwell.
So while some reviewers seem dismayed at this commercial's "boosterism," which they see as shallow, I take it instead as a rather layered statement. The opening question, "What's more American than America?" Does it mean, simply, that many have imitated but none have duplicated the spirit of America? Or does it refer, more darkly, to something else? It's an open question, one I think the viewer is invited to actively consider. A commercial that makes you think? Apparently so, since viewing it merely as a simple attempt to sell cars creates some puzzling questions. It's really more like a poem, I think.
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
Thursday, January 30, 2014
A Mythologist, a TV, and the State of the Union
The State of the Union address is a political ritual--or purports to be. I say "purports" because in a true ritual, what occurs is transformative. The ritual makes something happen. With the State of the Union, the idea is that the President outlines his views on where the country is and where it needs to go, thus galvanizing the troops to join him in creating change. The speech is incantatory, you might say.
While listening to the President speak on Tuesday, I found myself agreeing with a lot of his stated goals. He spoke forcefully and enthusiastically about environmental protection, helping the middle class, education, and other matters. I think he did a good job of striking a tone of optimism and creating the sense that America is in a good position, soon to be even better (whether or not it's true, he made a good case for it).
I've often been impressed with President Obama's intelligence and verbal ability; he is a quick thinker on his feet, a trait that's especially obvious during debates. Tuesday night's speech was largely the work of a speech writer, of course, which puts it in a different category than debating, but we know the President approved both wording and content. His style was evident in the address. I wouldn't put the President's rhetoric on the same level as that of, say, John F. Kennedy or Abraham Lincoln, but, truly, how many can aspire to that? That kind of eloquence is rarely seen.
What about the transformative power of the speech? Was this a true ritual? Well, we don't know yet. We heard the address, and now we await events. There has to be something genuine behind the words in order for them to have power. Certainly, there was a lot of energy in the House Chamber last night, and the assembled politicians and guests greeted most of the president's proposals enthusiastically.
I disagree with the President on some things. I was disappointed in his recent defense of the NSA data collection programs (which he only touched on Tuesday night), a position I find astonishing. His advocacy of those programs was very articulate, but seriously, are we supposed to believe, especially in light of recent data breaches like the one at Target, that yet more large collections of private data are a good idea? Some officials keep saying it's only metadata, not content. That may be true, but can no one envision ways in which even that information could be (and possibly is being) abused? If you're not involved in criminal activity, why should the government be able to find out who you've been talking to? Some analysts have said of 9/11 that it was not lack of intelligence that led to the attack, but failure to use intelligence already available. I have no doubt of the government's ability to track criminals and terrorists, but the average American is neither and has done nothing to forfeit the (by the way, constitutional) right to privacy.
I guess this issue of overreaching and secrecy overshadows, for me, a lot of the other (laudable) goals and achievements the President outlined. Take the Affordable Health Care Act, which was featured prominently in his speech. I see affordable health care as a positive thing and have heard people I know say they now have coverage for the first time in years. This is a big deal, despite all the snafus with the website and that oh-so-secure information applicants had to entrust to the government. On the other hand, I've been reading about negotiations the administration has tried to keep out of the press concerning the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement. It would reportedly give foreign corporations the power to challenge laws and regulations that protect, among other things, food safety and environmental quality. As in our laws and regulations. Our food safety. Our air and water. If foreign corporations are granted the ability to challenge, in international court, laws designed to protect us, then you're going to need that Obamacare. (Many Democrats and some conservative Republicans alike oppose the TPP and/or the extreme lack of transparency surrounding it. I say, good for them.)
The President portrayed himself in his speech as willing to charge ahead and act on his own to accomplish his policies if Congress isn't willing to jump on board. A lot of political hay was made last year of Congressional intransigency. Naturally, the public is angered when the failure to reach agreements results in government shutdowns and lack of progress on important issues. However, I wonder if there isn't another side to the story, one involving Congress's frustration with an administration that shuts them out of decision-making in which they should be involved. Apparently, it even keeps tabs on who they've been talking to (a privilege not reserved just for the masses, it seems).
I'm suspicious of attempts to point the finger (or, as Jungians say, project the shadow), just as I'm suspicious of attempts to change the subject, do things secretly, or divide people. Ditto attempts to circumvent or lean on the press. I know there are good, hard-working people on both sides of the aisle in Congress. I suspect many of them would be glad to work with the President to achieve the goals he laid out Tuesday night. The question is, why isn't it happening? If they were candid--parties, partisanship, politics aside, just for one moment--I wonder what members of Congress would say about their views on the lack of progress. Maybe we should ask them.
So, you may be wondering, if, by chance, Tuesday night's speech wasn't ritual, wasn't transformative, what was it? There are other possibilities for what we saw, but I like the approach of anthropologist and historian John J. MacAloon, who has applied the categories of festival, spectacle, ritual, and game to no less an event than the Olympics. Ritual we've talked about. Spectacle is something designed to impress by reason of a powerful display; it's what the Olympics became in the hands of the Romans; it was Michelle Obama's odd appearance at last year's Oscars. A festival is a celebration, like a Fourth of July party. Games are, well, games. They, too, are a type of performance, one that requires roles, rules, and established goals.
The State of the Union address might have been more than one of these performance types. Certainly, it was impressive to watch, and I found it moving to see the mechanisms of our democracy laid bare in the House Chamber, with Supreme Court justices, members of Congress, and the President and members of his administration all coming together like that. It was a little like the Fourth of July, wasn't it? I hope it will give us reason to celebrate, but that remains to be seen. Words are powerful, but in politics, they too often seem to be merely that: words.
Rhetoric is nice, but sometimes homespun philosophy is more to the point. To put it another way, maybe what we need is, as Toby Keith says, a little less talk and a lot more action. Of the G-rated variety, of course.
While listening to the President speak on Tuesday, I found myself agreeing with a lot of his stated goals. He spoke forcefully and enthusiastically about environmental protection, helping the middle class, education, and other matters. I think he did a good job of striking a tone of optimism and creating the sense that America is in a good position, soon to be even better (whether or not it's true, he made a good case for it).
I've often been impressed with President Obama's intelligence and verbal ability; he is a quick thinker on his feet, a trait that's especially obvious during debates. Tuesday night's speech was largely the work of a speech writer, of course, which puts it in a different category than debating, but we know the President approved both wording and content. His style was evident in the address. I wouldn't put the President's rhetoric on the same level as that of, say, John F. Kennedy or Abraham Lincoln, but, truly, how many can aspire to that? That kind of eloquence is rarely seen.
What about the transformative power of the speech? Was this a true ritual? Well, we don't know yet. We heard the address, and now we await events. There has to be something genuine behind the words in order for them to have power. Certainly, there was a lot of energy in the House Chamber last night, and the assembled politicians and guests greeted most of the president's proposals enthusiastically.
I disagree with the President on some things. I was disappointed in his recent defense of the NSA data collection programs (which he only touched on Tuesday night), a position I find astonishing. His advocacy of those programs was very articulate, but seriously, are we supposed to believe, especially in light of recent data breaches like the one at Target, that yet more large collections of private data are a good idea? Some officials keep saying it's only metadata, not content. That may be true, but can no one envision ways in which even that information could be (and possibly is being) abused? If you're not involved in criminal activity, why should the government be able to find out who you've been talking to? Some analysts have said of 9/11 that it was not lack of intelligence that led to the attack, but failure to use intelligence already available. I have no doubt of the government's ability to track criminals and terrorists, but the average American is neither and has done nothing to forfeit the (by the way, constitutional) right to privacy.
I guess this issue of overreaching and secrecy overshadows, for me, a lot of the other (laudable) goals and achievements the President outlined. Take the Affordable Health Care Act, which was featured prominently in his speech. I see affordable health care as a positive thing and have heard people I know say they now have coverage for the first time in years. This is a big deal, despite all the snafus with the website and that oh-so-secure information applicants had to entrust to the government. On the other hand, I've been reading about negotiations the administration has tried to keep out of the press concerning the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement. It would reportedly give foreign corporations the power to challenge laws and regulations that protect, among other things, food safety and environmental quality. As in our laws and regulations. Our food safety. Our air and water. If foreign corporations are granted the ability to challenge, in international court, laws designed to protect us, then you're going to need that Obamacare. (Many Democrats and some conservative Republicans alike oppose the TPP and/or the extreme lack of transparency surrounding it. I say, good for them.)
The President portrayed himself in his speech as willing to charge ahead and act on his own to accomplish his policies if Congress isn't willing to jump on board. A lot of political hay was made last year of Congressional intransigency. Naturally, the public is angered when the failure to reach agreements results in government shutdowns and lack of progress on important issues. However, I wonder if there isn't another side to the story, one involving Congress's frustration with an administration that shuts them out of decision-making in which they should be involved. Apparently, it even keeps tabs on who they've been talking to (a privilege not reserved just for the masses, it seems).
I'm suspicious of attempts to point the finger (or, as Jungians say, project the shadow), just as I'm suspicious of attempts to change the subject, do things secretly, or divide people. Ditto attempts to circumvent or lean on the press. I know there are good, hard-working people on both sides of the aisle in Congress. I suspect many of them would be glad to work with the President to achieve the goals he laid out Tuesday night. The question is, why isn't it happening? If they were candid--parties, partisanship, politics aside, just for one moment--I wonder what members of Congress would say about their views on the lack of progress. Maybe we should ask them.
So, you may be wondering, if, by chance, Tuesday night's speech wasn't ritual, wasn't transformative, what was it? There are other possibilities for what we saw, but I like the approach of anthropologist and historian John J. MacAloon, who has applied the categories of festival, spectacle, ritual, and game to no less an event than the Olympics. Ritual we've talked about. Spectacle is something designed to impress by reason of a powerful display; it's what the Olympics became in the hands of the Romans; it was Michelle Obama's odd appearance at last year's Oscars. A festival is a celebration, like a Fourth of July party. Games are, well, games. They, too, are a type of performance, one that requires roles, rules, and established goals.
The State of the Union address might have been more than one of these performance types. Certainly, it was impressive to watch, and I found it moving to see the mechanisms of our democracy laid bare in the House Chamber, with Supreme Court justices, members of Congress, and the President and members of his administration all coming together like that. It was a little like the Fourth of July, wasn't it? I hope it will give us reason to celebrate, but that remains to be seen. Words are powerful, but in politics, they too often seem to be merely that: words.
Rhetoric is nice, but sometimes homespun philosophy is more to the point. To put it another way, maybe what we need is, as Toby Keith says, a little less talk and a lot more action. Of the G-rated variety, of course.
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
Showing Up in Person at the County Clerk's
So, here we are, magically transported to Lapland, courtesy of a new mini-polar vortex, or bombogenesis, or whatever it is this week. Seriously, didn't I say you could never tell with these beckoning spirals? Instead of Coppertone and sand in our shoes, we're facing salt trucks and extra layers, at least where I live. So be it. Sometimes you just have to wait, relying on delayed gratification to deliver spring the same way it always does, by the calendar.
But a winter storm has its merits. I was thinking about that yesterday while warming up my car and knocking off the snow prior to a trip downtown. I could have mailed in my auto registration fee, but what fun would that be? Instead, I was multitasking: clearing my car and moving it off the street, getting some fresh air, saving the mail-in fee, beating the deadline, and, less prosaically, preparing to enjoy a walk in the snow.
People seemed to be driving cautiously, and I arrived downtown without incident, parking behind the old Carnegie Library. Gratz Park is pretty in any season, and swathed in snow, it looks like a Victorian Christmas card. On foot, I headed down Market Street, past the Gothic church with the pretty little hedge garden, and turned left on Short. I walked past the little clock shop, which doubles as a magic and novelties emporium, and encountered a parking lot attendant shoveling snow. I found myself in a wind tunnel, with icy air whipping around the buildings and hitting me head-on, the Lexington mini-version of Chicago. I was now thinking less about fresh air and more about getting warm and actually jogged around a slower moving pedestrian near the courthouse.
After a brief stop to warm my hands and get cash for the County Clerk's office, I was out again in a white world of big, swirling flakes. I was by no means the only person out; walking, while requiring more energy than usual, was not especially hazardous--just cold. Once inside the Clerk's office, I saw that my calculation had paid off and that the line for auto registration had only a few people. Waiting for my turn gave me a chance to warm up again. A few minutes later, new sticker in hand, I glided back into the snowstorm, doing my own version of the Waltz of the Snowflakes, minus the toe shoes and a little of the grace.
The park in front of the main library, on warm days, is full of people lounging; there was none of that yesterday, as anyone who was out was moving with purpose. I noticed the construction zone across from the park before I slipped across Main Street, sallied past the courthouse, and turned left. After seeing my reflection in a store window and deciding that I could pass for an extra in either Doctor Zhivago or The Snow Queen, I stopped under an overhang to brush off snow and stamp around a little. Pressing on, I turned right on a quiet, pedestrian-free Upper Street and enjoyed the fact that I was out of the wind.
Along the little street next to the church, past the brick wall and the perfume shop, and there was Market Street once again. I took a minute to notice the stateliness of the Carnegie Library as seen from the front, solid and elegant amid bare trees and snow, and reflected that if I were a visitor, I would be exclaiming over the loveliness of this town. What's commonplace often fails to impress because it's so familiar, but catch it from the corner of your eye, or from a different angle, or with the context slightly altered, and you see it anew. If I had been hoping for a moment of beauty on my little walk, this was it.
I glissaded the rest of the way to my parking spot thinking about the fact that I'm (unavoidably) always affixing a new license plate or sticker to the back of my car on a cold winter day, often an icy or snowy one, and this year would be no different. But now that I had walked and driven the snowy, bombogenesed streets of home, which took a little more work than usual, that chore in the parking lot would seem less of a burden. A little fresh air will do that for you.
But a winter storm has its merits. I was thinking about that yesterday while warming up my car and knocking off the snow prior to a trip downtown. I could have mailed in my auto registration fee, but what fun would that be? Instead, I was multitasking: clearing my car and moving it off the street, getting some fresh air, saving the mail-in fee, beating the deadline, and, less prosaically, preparing to enjoy a walk in the snow.
People seemed to be driving cautiously, and I arrived downtown without incident, parking behind the old Carnegie Library. Gratz Park is pretty in any season, and swathed in snow, it looks like a Victorian Christmas card. On foot, I headed down Market Street, past the Gothic church with the pretty little hedge garden, and turned left on Short. I walked past the little clock shop, which doubles as a magic and novelties emporium, and encountered a parking lot attendant shoveling snow. I found myself in a wind tunnel, with icy air whipping around the buildings and hitting me head-on, the Lexington mini-version of Chicago. I was now thinking less about fresh air and more about getting warm and actually jogged around a slower moving pedestrian near the courthouse.
After a brief stop to warm my hands and get cash for the County Clerk's office, I was out again in a white world of big, swirling flakes. I was by no means the only person out; walking, while requiring more energy than usual, was not especially hazardous--just cold. Once inside the Clerk's office, I saw that my calculation had paid off and that the line for auto registration had only a few people. Waiting for my turn gave me a chance to warm up again. A few minutes later, new sticker in hand, I glided back into the snowstorm, doing my own version of the Waltz of the Snowflakes, minus the toe shoes and a little of the grace.
The park in front of the main library, on warm days, is full of people lounging; there was none of that yesterday, as anyone who was out was moving with purpose. I noticed the construction zone across from the park before I slipped across Main Street, sallied past the courthouse, and turned left. After seeing my reflection in a store window and deciding that I could pass for an extra in either Doctor Zhivago or The Snow Queen, I stopped under an overhang to brush off snow and stamp around a little. Pressing on, I turned right on a quiet, pedestrian-free Upper Street and enjoyed the fact that I was out of the wind.
Along the little street next to the church, past the brick wall and the perfume shop, and there was Market Street once again. I took a minute to notice the stateliness of the Carnegie Library as seen from the front, solid and elegant amid bare trees and snow, and reflected that if I were a visitor, I would be exclaiming over the loveliness of this town. What's commonplace often fails to impress because it's so familiar, but catch it from the corner of your eye, or from a different angle, or with the context slightly altered, and you see it anew. If I had been hoping for a moment of beauty on my little walk, this was it.
I glissaded the rest of the way to my parking spot thinking about the fact that I'm (unavoidably) always affixing a new license plate or sticker to the back of my car on a cold winter day, often an icy or snowy one, and this year would be no different. But now that I had walked and driven the snowy, bombogenesed streets of home, which took a little more work than usual, that chore in the parking lot would seem less of a burden. A little fresh air will do that for you.
Thursday, January 16, 2014
Spirits of the Corn
I read a few days ago about the pending acquisition of Beam Inc. by the Japanese company Suntory Holdings. Beam is the producer of Jim Beam and Maker's Mark, both legendary Kentucky bourbons. (Jim Beam is made in Clermont, KY, and Maker's Mark in Loretto, KY.) But what, you might ask, does bourbon have to do with mythology?
Actually, a lot, especially when it comes to Kentucky. I don't know if all the stories you hear about bourbon are literally true, but they are certainly colorful, like the one about bourbon being invented by a Baptist preacher, Elijah Craig. If it isn't true, it ought to be. (What is a fact is that Heaven Hill Distilleries in Louisville and Bardstown produce a bourbon named for Elijah Craig.) Other facts about bourbon: it's made from a corn-based mash requiring a very painstaking distillation and aging process, and it's aged in charred oak barrels.
The history of bourbon-making in Kentucky goes back to the 1700s, with even George Washington playing a role. When his administration levied a tax on distilled liquor, farmers and producers in western Pennsylvania protested, and the Whiskey Rebellion was born. Many distillers moved west to Kentucky. Unlike their compatriots back east, Kentucky distillers used a mash based on corn rather than rye or wheat, thus creating the special type of whiskey called bourbon.
Many of the companies that make Kentucky bourbon have been doing it for a long time, and their websites are full of facts and lore. You learn about things like the Angel's Share and the Devil's Cut, barrel staves drying in the summer air, "Old Tub," and a lot more. According to the people at Maker's Mark, a previous company chief, Bill Samuels, Sr., ceremonially burned the family's original bourbon recipe and set the drapes on fire in the process. Heaven Hill was founded by five brothers after Prohibition ended. Jim Beam's site says that when Ulysses S. Grant, a bourbon aficionado, was called a drunk, Abraham Lincoln told the critics to "Find out what he drinks and send a case to my other generals." Woodford Reserve's current Master Distiller is only the seventh in Brown-Forman's 140-year history.
You find many recipes for bourbon drinks on these websites, including one for After Midnight in Kentucky, which gets my vote for "Best Name." There's also the famous Mint Julep, the traditional drink of the Kentucky Derby. I had a Mint Julep once and didn't like the combination of bourbon and mint, but bourbon does go well with other flavors, especially chocolate. Bourbon balls, which consist of a bourbon-laced cream candy coated with chocolate, are a specialty around here. A lot of home cooks make them for Christmas, and I've seen them on the dessert menu at a well-known Louisville restaurant. Also, you really haven't lived until you've had bread pudding with bourbon sauce. It's just that good.
As it is, the Beam corporate headquarters are in the Chicago area, not Kentucky. Although these acquisitions happen all the time in the global economy, the news that a company on the other side of the world is acquiring two such iconic Kentucky brands is still a little startling. Suntory is featured in the film Lost in Translation, in which Bill Murray portrays an American actor filming a commercial for Suntory's liquors. While in Japan, he meets Scarlett Johannson's character, and they develop an unusual friendship. As I remember it, the film explored the problems of communication between individuals against the larger backdrop of a cross-cultural adventure. It seemed to make the point that some of the worst misunderstandings occur between people who can't use language and cultural barriers as an excuse.
It's fascinating to think that an enterprise with such humble origins as bourbon is now a global commodity. One thing bourbon doesn't have and seems to need at this juncture is its own god. The gods of wine are Dionysus and Aphrodite, but they really don't jibe with bourbon, which has nothing to do with grapes or lofty elegance. I imagine someone like Elijah Craig. I don't know what the real Craig looked like, but my mythical one is fiery and bearded, with piercing eyes and a commanding voice. He cusses like a sailor but can explain the finer points of corn, winter wheat, barley, rye, and Kentucky spring water like nobody's business. He's like an Old Testament patriarch, except that when he strikes his staff on the rock, 90 proof comes out instead of milk and honey.
Actually, a lot, especially when it comes to Kentucky. I don't know if all the stories you hear about bourbon are literally true, but they are certainly colorful, like the one about bourbon being invented by a Baptist preacher, Elijah Craig. If it isn't true, it ought to be. (What is a fact is that Heaven Hill Distilleries in Louisville and Bardstown produce a bourbon named for Elijah Craig.) Other facts about bourbon: it's made from a corn-based mash requiring a very painstaking distillation and aging process, and it's aged in charred oak barrels.
The history of bourbon-making in Kentucky goes back to the 1700s, with even George Washington playing a role. When his administration levied a tax on distilled liquor, farmers and producers in western Pennsylvania protested, and the Whiskey Rebellion was born. Many distillers moved west to Kentucky. Unlike their compatriots back east, Kentucky distillers used a mash based on corn rather than rye or wheat, thus creating the special type of whiskey called bourbon.
Many of the companies that make Kentucky bourbon have been doing it for a long time, and their websites are full of facts and lore. You learn about things like the Angel's Share and the Devil's Cut, barrel staves drying in the summer air, "Old Tub," and a lot more. According to the people at Maker's Mark, a previous company chief, Bill Samuels, Sr., ceremonially burned the family's original bourbon recipe and set the drapes on fire in the process. Heaven Hill was founded by five brothers after Prohibition ended. Jim Beam's site says that when Ulysses S. Grant, a bourbon aficionado, was called a drunk, Abraham Lincoln told the critics to "Find out what he drinks and send a case to my other generals." Woodford Reserve's current Master Distiller is only the seventh in Brown-Forman's 140-year history.
You find many recipes for bourbon drinks on these websites, including one for After Midnight in Kentucky, which gets my vote for "Best Name." There's also the famous Mint Julep, the traditional drink of the Kentucky Derby. I had a Mint Julep once and didn't like the combination of bourbon and mint, but bourbon does go well with other flavors, especially chocolate. Bourbon balls, which consist of a bourbon-laced cream candy coated with chocolate, are a specialty around here. A lot of home cooks make them for Christmas, and I've seen them on the dessert menu at a well-known Louisville restaurant. Also, you really haven't lived until you've had bread pudding with bourbon sauce. It's just that good.
As it is, the Beam corporate headquarters are in the Chicago area, not Kentucky. Although these acquisitions happen all the time in the global economy, the news that a company on the other side of the world is acquiring two such iconic Kentucky brands is still a little startling. Suntory is featured in the film Lost in Translation, in which Bill Murray portrays an American actor filming a commercial for Suntory's liquors. While in Japan, he meets Scarlett Johannson's character, and they develop an unusual friendship. As I remember it, the film explored the problems of communication between individuals against the larger backdrop of a cross-cultural adventure. It seemed to make the point that some of the worst misunderstandings occur between people who can't use language and cultural barriers as an excuse.
It's fascinating to think that an enterprise with such humble origins as bourbon is now a global commodity. One thing bourbon doesn't have and seems to need at this juncture is its own god. The gods of wine are Dionysus and Aphrodite, but they really don't jibe with bourbon, which has nothing to do with grapes or lofty elegance. I imagine someone like Elijah Craig. I don't know what the real Craig looked like, but my mythical one is fiery and bearded, with piercing eyes and a commanding voice. He cusses like a sailor but can explain the finer points of corn, winter wheat, barley, rye, and Kentucky spring water like nobody's business. He's like an Old Testament patriarch, except that when he strikes his staff on the rock, 90 proof comes out instead of milk and honey.
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
The Winter of Our Polar Vortex
Before this week, I'd never heard of a polar vortex, and now here we are in one. It's an interesting phrase. The words conjure up an image of swirling ice and snow, a gigantic moving whirlpool sucking polar bears, igloos, sleds, Olympic ice dancers, and anything else in the vicinity through a black hole into some alternate universe. I picture it working like the "Wood Between the Worlds" in Narnia, where jumping into a forest pool takes you straight to a different world. I might jump in it myself if I thought I would land in the tropics, but you never know with these magic portals.
The more mundane reality is that around here it hasn't been much different than any other cold spell, although you do have to bundle up excessively. If you go out only for a moment, to check the mail, you don't really notice it, but if you stay out any longer, like I did while deciding whether to put something in the recycling bin, you realize fast just how glacial the air is. People seem to be going about their business, though, and we were lucky not to get a lot of snow and ice. I've been at home, making the best of it, which for me means writing and spending time in the kitchen, both of which are safer than outdoor activities. (Of course, much depends on the kitchen and the writing; both are usually safe as practiced by me.) Spicy music on the stereo also helps.
It's nice to be able to escape to a warm climate if you can, although some of us cannot. When I was in grad school, winter breezed by me because I was commuting regularly to Southern California. I often had to change my clothes when I got there, tucking my coat into my suitcase and sometimes even changing my outfit. I also remember a couple of January trips to Florida that revealed just how wonderful it can be to trade a frozen landscape for an ocean the color of turquoise green. I once drove to the Keys for a writer's conference, going, unbelievably, from an overcast Kentucky winter to a humid tropical thunderstorm in the space of a day.
To everything, there is a season, though. I remember a monumental snowstorm of 20 years ago (for us, that means more than eight or nine inches), which was followed immediately by a precipitous temperature drop. We ended up with roads thickly covered in ice, on which it was possible to slide even while stopped at a light, as I discovered in my Toyota. The main thing I took away from this, aside from a new aesthetic appreciation for dry pavement, is a memory of a stuck car I saw on my way to work one morning. On a busy street, near downtown, this car was stranded on a hill, and a number of passersby had stopped to help. As I watched, the group pushed and rocked and strove until the car was finally free.
You might think that after several arduous minutes of laboring in freezing cold and deep snow on a slippery hill to free a stranger's car, people would look a little worse for wear. After all, they had places to be, too, and might now be late getting wherever they had to go. Actually, they were all smiling and laughing. There was a great camaraderie about that scene and a lot of jubilation; I've thought about it many times since. Sometimes it takes a harsh spell of weather to show you how good people can be. Tough conditions give altruism a chance to shine.
I guess I would have missed that scene if I'd been in the tropics, so maybe it was good I didn't manage a winter vacation that year. It's good to have a few memories like that tucked away in your pockets for later viewing. Of course, I like tropical sunsets and sandy beaches as much as the next person, but if not for the contrast with all these winters, I might not appreciate them as well as I do.
The more mundane reality is that around here it hasn't been much different than any other cold spell, although you do have to bundle up excessively. If you go out only for a moment, to check the mail, you don't really notice it, but if you stay out any longer, like I did while deciding whether to put something in the recycling bin, you realize fast just how glacial the air is. People seem to be going about their business, though, and we were lucky not to get a lot of snow and ice. I've been at home, making the best of it, which for me means writing and spending time in the kitchen, both of which are safer than outdoor activities. (Of course, much depends on the kitchen and the writing; both are usually safe as practiced by me.) Spicy music on the stereo also helps.
It's nice to be able to escape to a warm climate if you can, although some of us cannot. When I was in grad school, winter breezed by me because I was commuting regularly to Southern California. I often had to change my clothes when I got there, tucking my coat into my suitcase and sometimes even changing my outfit. I also remember a couple of January trips to Florida that revealed just how wonderful it can be to trade a frozen landscape for an ocean the color of turquoise green. I once drove to the Keys for a writer's conference, going, unbelievably, from an overcast Kentucky winter to a humid tropical thunderstorm in the space of a day.
To everything, there is a season, though. I remember a monumental snowstorm of 20 years ago (for us, that means more than eight or nine inches), which was followed immediately by a precipitous temperature drop. We ended up with roads thickly covered in ice, on which it was possible to slide even while stopped at a light, as I discovered in my Toyota. The main thing I took away from this, aside from a new aesthetic appreciation for dry pavement, is a memory of a stuck car I saw on my way to work one morning. On a busy street, near downtown, this car was stranded on a hill, and a number of passersby had stopped to help. As I watched, the group pushed and rocked and strove until the car was finally free.
You might think that after several arduous minutes of laboring in freezing cold and deep snow on a slippery hill to free a stranger's car, people would look a little worse for wear. After all, they had places to be, too, and might now be late getting wherever they had to go. Actually, they were all smiling and laughing. There was a great camaraderie about that scene and a lot of jubilation; I've thought about it many times since. Sometimes it takes a harsh spell of weather to show you how good people can be. Tough conditions give altruism a chance to shine.
I guess I would have missed that scene if I'd been in the tropics, so maybe it was good I didn't manage a winter vacation that year. It's good to have a few memories like that tucked away in your pockets for later viewing. Of course, I like tropical sunsets and sandy beaches as much as the next person, but if not for the contrast with all these winters, I might not appreciate them as well as I do.
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
Moss Could Never Grow on You
One of the more interesting 2013 media events I'm aware of is the release of the interactive Bob Dylan video for "Like a Rolling Stone." When I first came across it on author Neil Gaiman's Facebook page, I hadn't heard any of the pre-release buzz and had no preconceived ideas. The first time I watched, I didn't even realize there were 16 videos. By happenstance, the video from the Moviez channel was the one I caught, and it floored me.
All of the videos are alike in that each one features characters (in some cases, actual TV personalities) lip-synching to "Like a Rolling Stone." The Moviez video shows a couple coming out of their brownstone on a city street, engaged in a somewhat passive-aggressive dialogue consisting of the lyrics to the song. The peaceful morning street contrasts sharply with the malice in their expressions; the woman starts to walk away but comes back; the man smiles knowingly. I was reminded of Jean-Paul Sartre's No Exit, in which hell is in the interaction between characters, and also of Edward Albee's Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? Ingmar Bergman's Scenes From a Marriage also comes to mind.
We see the couple walk through a park, enter a diner, and order food, while continuing to bicker via the song. At the end of the video, the couple are seated at the counter and have just begun to eat breakfast. She leans toward him and smiles in what might seem a friendly way if not for the vindictiveness of their previous interaction, which consisted entirely of mutual recriminations.
This plays out like an unpleasant (but humorous) send-up of romantic comedies and certainly works on that level. I might have left it at that, except for one thing. The waitress in the scene reminded me inexplicably of a friend who told me a story about the time she cooked dinner for a now-famous political couple. That reminded me that the video could be read as more than just a satire on marriage. You don't have to look far to see why bickering, accusations, and politics might come to mind in such a context.
In the other 15 videos, I was frequently reminded of events large and small that I've seen or heard about. Mythologists caution people about reading stories too literally, and I support that caution. Nevertheless, I was continually struck by resemblances to actual events. One of the videos, depicting a sports network's coverage of a tennis match, features two opponents, one a handsome, Kennedy-esque figure, and the other quite reminiscent of Lee Harvey Oswald. It's hard to escape the feeling that the video references an assassination, especially when you notice the names of the players: Diovesky and Plotnivich. Certainly, thoughts about JFK's assassination have been floating in the culture this year, with even John Kerry weighing in, so it isn't surprising that they emerge here as a theme.
A seemingly ordinary episode of The Price Is Right, until you notice the body language of the participants and audience members . . . an episode of Bachelor's Roses with several women interested in one desirable man . . . a cooking program with a remarkably dead-pan chef . . . the irrepressible Property Brothers and their clients, one of whom has a very red face . . . a radio personality dominating a less than amicable interview with a man in a striped shirt . . . rapper Danny Brown on the Music 1 Bass channel, innocent and childlike, at play on the neighborhood swings . . . a Pawn Stars exchange in which an owner seems to be of two minds about a valuable item . . . a notably witchy fashion reporter (on Broome Street!) who doesn't seem to notice the effect she has on her interviewees . . . three wizened professors on the History Network (and who are those people in the upstairs window?) . . . a news anchor on a business desk who can't stop blinking . . . Mr. Dylan himself, in concert footage.
Bob Dylan has long had the stature of a prophet and soothsayer, albeit one who occasionally trades personas. I think this video, directed by Vania Heymann, has a lot of him in it. This is the first official video for "Like a Rolling Stone," one of Dylan's signature songs. The video reinterprets the song for our time, something that's bound to happen when a theme is archetypal to begin with. I doubt whether anyone has captured all the nuances of meaning in the video, but "Like a Rolling Stone" - Interactive, while parodying the channel-flipping experience, gives you a chance to "see through" what appears on the surface.
This collection of videos weaving in and out of a single theme or themes is very postmodern. I admit to having a mixed reaction to it; like the media experience it satirizes, it can produce vertigo and a feeling of the ground shifting under your feet. Ultimately, though, I think the video challenges us to both notice and question. Truth can emerge in surprising ways; often, it appears in popular culture, in movies, TV, and songs, before you see it anywhere else. It's not uncommon.
To me, the ultimate criteria for evaluating truth or falsehood, no matter who tells you something, are in your own mind and heart. Does what I'm seeing and hearing ring true? Does it fit in with the facts? Is it consistent with the rest of my experience of the world? Knowing that my knowledge is limited, can I imagine it being true?
I'm sure the video is even now being analyzed and hotly debated among music, video, and technology lovers everywhere. All of this makes me hope we can turn that same careful eye toward all the media we're exposed to. It takes close attention sometimes to sift through the gossip, sound bites, and misinformation of the day to discover what's true, even though the truth is always there. Sometimes we just don't see it.
All of the videos are alike in that each one features characters (in some cases, actual TV personalities) lip-synching to "Like a Rolling Stone." The Moviez video shows a couple coming out of their brownstone on a city street, engaged in a somewhat passive-aggressive dialogue consisting of the lyrics to the song. The peaceful morning street contrasts sharply with the malice in their expressions; the woman starts to walk away but comes back; the man smiles knowingly. I was reminded of Jean-Paul Sartre's No Exit, in which hell is in the interaction between characters, and also of Edward Albee's Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? Ingmar Bergman's Scenes From a Marriage also comes to mind.
We see the couple walk through a park, enter a diner, and order food, while continuing to bicker via the song. At the end of the video, the couple are seated at the counter and have just begun to eat breakfast. She leans toward him and smiles in what might seem a friendly way if not for the vindictiveness of their previous interaction, which consisted entirely of mutual recriminations.
This plays out like an unpleasant (but humorous) send-up of romantic comedies and certainly works on that level. I might have left it at that, except for one thing. The waitress in the scene reminded me inexplicably of a friend who told me a story about the time she cooked dinner for a now-famous political couple. That reminded me that the video could be read as more than just a satire on marriage. You don't have to look far to see why bickering, accusations, and politics might come to mind in such a context.
In the other 15 videos, I was frequently reminded of events large and small that I've seen or heard about. Mythologists caution people about reading stories too literally, and I support that caution. Nevertheless, I was continually struck by resemblances to actual events. One of the videos, depicting a sports network's coverage of a tennis match, features two opponents, one a handsome, Kennedy-esque figure, and the other quite reminiscent of Lee Harvey Oswald. It's hard to escape the feeling that the video references an assassination, especially when you notice the names of the players: Diovesky and Plotnivich. Certainly, thoughts about JFK's assassination have been floating in the culture this year, with even John Kerry weighing in, so it isn't surprising that they emerge here as a theme.
A seemingly ordinary episode of The Price Is Right, until you notice the body language of the participants and audience members . . . an episode of Bachelor's Roses with several women interested in one desirable man . . . a cooking program with a remarkably dead-pan chef . . . the irrepressible Property Brothers and their clients, one of whom has a very red face . . . a radio personality dominating a less than amicable interview with a man in a striped shirt . . . rapper Danny Brown on the Music 1 Bass channel, innocent and childlike, at play on the neighborhood swings . . . a Pawn Stars exchange in which an owner seems to be of two minds about a valuable item . . . a notably witchy fashion reporter (on Broome Street!) who doesn't seem to notice the effect she has on her interviewees . . . three wizened professors on the History Network (and who are those people in the upstairs window?) . . . a news anchor on a business desk who can't stop blinking . . . Mr. Dylan himself, in concert footage.
Bob Dylan has long had the stature of a prophet and soothsayer, albeit one who occasionally trades personas. I think this video, directed by Vania Heymann, has a lot of him in it. This is the first official video for "Like a Rolling Stone," one of Dylan's signature songs. The video reinterprets the song for our time, something that's bound to happen when a theme is archetypal to begin with. I doubt whether anyone has captured all the nuances of meaning in the video, but "Like a Rolling Stone" - Interactive, while parodying the channel-flipping experience, gives you a chance to "see through" what appears on the surface.
This collection of videos weaving in and out of a single theme or themes is very postmodern. I admit to having a mixed reaction to it; like the media experience it satirizes, it can produce vertigo and a feeling of the ground shifting under your feet. Ultimately, though, I think the video challenges us to both notice and question. Truth can emerge in surprising ways; often, it appears in popular culture, in movies, TV, and songs, before you see it anywhere else. It's not uncommon.
To me, the ultimate criteria for evaluating truth or falsehood, no matter who tells you something, are in your own mind and heart. Does what I'm seeing and hearing ring true? Does it fit in with the facts? Is it consistent with the rest of my experience of the world? Knowing that my knowledge is limited, can I imagine it being true?
I'm sure the video is even now being analyzed and hotly debated among music, video, and technology lovers everywhere. All of this makes me hope we can turn that same careful eye toward all the media we're exposed to. It takes close attention sometimes to sift through the gossip, sound bites, and misinformation of the day to discover what's true, even though the truth is always there. Sometimes we just don't see it.
Thursday, December 26, 2013
A Dwarf, Not a Hobbit
Is any story a myth, or is a myth a special kind of story? I tend to think a story becomes more mythic as it becomes more universal, relying on themes everyone can relate to, but almost any story has mythic elements. We don't always see a contemporary story as mythic (or a mythic story as contemporary), especially if we think of myths as tales from the past. Once you look closely, you're often surprised to find mythic characters and plots hiding inside ordinary protagonists and story lines. Even current events can be read mythically.
Peter Jackson's The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is easy to identify as myth because it's epic fantasy, a familiar form of myth. The director has been criticized for stretching Tolkien's book into three movies and adding material, but almost any myth with staying power has variations that diverge. There have been other versions of The Hobbit, and more undoubtedly will follow. Jackson has tied his Hobbit movies very closely to The Lord of the Rings, turning Tolkien's almost playful treasure hunt into a prelude to the War of the Rings that explains much of what happens there.
I wrote last year about how I had come over time to see people I knew in Tolkien's characters. I identified most with Bilbo in last year's movie but was surprised this time to see myself most clearly in one or two of the dwarves. I don't think of myself as dwarf-like as Tolkien portrays them, but Jackson's handling of characters and interpersonal dynamics opened up unexpected vistas. This story really belongs to the dwarves, and the more I looked, the more human their problems became.
Likewise, the film shows a different side of the elves, who were heroic and otherworldly in LOTR. In Smaug (as in Tolkien's original), they're actually rather scary and, selfishly intent on their own concerns, are not above manipulation and deceit. Legolas and his father, the woodland king Thranduil, are lordly and arrogant, not people you'd really want to fall in with if you could help it. (One surmises that Legolas's character was later improved by his association with others not of his kind, the Fellowship, etc.)
The exception to elvish hostility in Smaug is Tauriel, a character Jackson and Company added to create a strong female presence. Some have criticized the surprising love triangle between her, Legolas, and Kili; I thought it brought a new piquancy to the story, which is now about more than just power, birthright, heroism, and treasure. Attraction and jealousy have been added to the mix, complicating things in an edgy but not inconceivable way.
It's very Hillmanian (as in James Hillman) to see yourself inhabiting multiple roles and stories, and I think the shifting perspectives between not only LOTR and The Hobbit but also between the first and second Hobbit movies make it easy for viewers to imagine themselves as more than one character. This is an idea I believe Jackson would approve, since he has appeared in cameo roles in all of his Tolkien films, here a Corsair, there a dwarf, there a man eating a carrot. Even some of the characters within the movie seem to play more than one role; Beorn is a potential protector and at the same time a fearsome predator; Gandalf is both wise and foolish, powerful and powerless; Bard is a leader in the making disguised as a rough and cunning bargeman.
It will be interesting to see if perspectives shift again as the Hobbit trilogy draws to a close in the next film. The current movie does a good job of showing the effects of power on those who wield it: from Bilbo, who finds in Mirkwood that the ring is already driving his actions in ways he doesn't want; to the Master of Laketown, who seems to enjoy the trappings of power more than the actual exercise of leadership; to Thorin, whose quest for his birthright as King under the Mountain is fraught with questions of moral ambiguity and divided responsibilities. Then there's Smaug himself, a living emblem of "might makes right," shown at one point gilded in molten gold, which he shakes off like a dog shedding water before flying off to attack Laketown. More than just the continuation of a hero's journey, Jackson's second Hobbit film is rather acute in looking at the shadow side of the quest.
You can respond to Smaug on many levels. The kids in the audience seemed to enjoy it as an adventure story, which it is. Tolkien fans are kept busy with comparisons between the book and the film (personally, I think most of Jackson's choices fall in with the spirit of Tolkien, if not the letter). Lovers of special effects and spectacle have a great deal to chew on, and the mythologists among us (and I hope we're all mythologists to some extent) are invited to find themselves and the world around them in the quest of 13 dwarves and a hobbit for treasure. On none of these levels is the filmgoer likely to come up empty. One of the characteristics of myth is its multilayered capacity to say several things at once.
Peter Jackson's The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is easy to identify as myth because it's epic fantasy, a familiar form of myth. The director has been criticized for stretching Tolkien's book into three movies and adding material, but almost any myth with staying power has variations that diverge. There have been other versions of The Hobbit, and more undoubtedly will follow. Jackson has tied his Hobbit movies very closely to The Lord of the Rings, turning Tolkien's almost playful treasure hunt into a prelude to the War of the Rings that explains much of what happens there.
I wrote last year about how I had come over time to see people I knew in Tolkien's characters. I identified most with Bilbo in last year's movie but was surprised this time to see myself most clearly in one or two of the dwarves. I don't think of myself as dwarf-like as Tolkien portrays them, but Jackson's handling of characters and interpersonal dynamics opened up unexpected vistas. This story really belongs to the dwarves, and the more I looked, the more human their problems became.
Likewise, the film shows a different side of the elves, who were heroic and otherworldly in LOTR. In Smaug (as in Tolkien's original), they're actually rather scary and, selfishly intent on their own concerns, are not above manipulation and deceit. Legolas and his father, the woodland king Thranduil, are lordly and arrogant, not people you'd really want to fall in with if you could help it. (One surmises that Legolas's character was later improved by his association with others not of his kind, the Fellowship, etc.)
The exception to elvish hostility in Smaug is Tauriel, a character Jackson and Company added to create a strong female presence. Some have criticized the surprising love triangle between her, Legolas, and Kili; I thought it brought a new piquancy to the story, which is now about more than just power, birthright, heroism, and treasure. Attraction and jealousy have been added to the mix, complicating things in an edgy but not inconceivable way.
It's very Hillmanian (as in James Hillman) to see yourself inhabiting multiple roles and stories, and I think the shifting perspectives between not only LOTR and The Hobbit but also between the first and second Hobbit movies make it easy for viewers to imagine themselves as more than one character. This is an idea I believe Jackson would approve, since he has appeared in cameo roles in all of his Tolkien films, here a Corsair, there a dwarf, there a man eating a carrot. Even some of the characters within the movie seem to play more than one role; Beorn is a potential protector and at the same time a fearsome predator; Gandalf is both wise and foolish, powerful and powerless; Bard is a leader in the making disguised as a rough and cunning bargeman.
It will be interesting to see if perspectives shift again as the Hobbit trilogy draws to a close in the next film. The current movie does a good job of showing the effects of power on those who wield it: from Bilbo, who finds in Mirkwood that the ring is already driving his actions in ways he doesn't want; to the Master of Laketown, who seems to enjoy the trappings of power more than the actual exercise of leadership; to Thorin, whose quest for his birthright as King under the Mountain is fraught with questions of moral ambiguity and divided responsibilities. Then there's Smaug himself, a living emblem of "might makes right," shown at one point gilded in molten gold, which he shakes off like a dog shedding water before flying off to attack Laketown. More than just the continuation of a hero's journey, Jackson's second Hobbit film is rather acute in looking at the shadow side of the quest.
You can respond to Smaug on many levels. The kids in the audience seemed to enjoy it as an adventure story, which it is. Tolkien fans are kept busy with comparisons between the book and the film (personally, I think most of Jackson's choices fall in with the spirit of Tolkien, if not the letter). Lovers of special effects and spectacle have a great deal to chew on, and the mythologists among us (and I hope we're all mythologists to some extent) are invited to find themselves and the world around them in the quest of 13 dwarves and a hobbit for treasure. On none of these levels is the filmgoer likely to come up empty. One of the characteristics of myth is its multilayered capacity to say several things at once.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
