Showing posts with label Bronwyn Lloyd. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bronwyn Lloyd. Show all posts

Tuesday

Never Get Taken to the Second Location (2013)



Landfall 225 (May 2013)

Never Get Taken to the Second Location


The Second Location. Stories by Bronwyn Lloyd. ISBN 978-1-877441-45-5. Auckland: Titus Books, 2011. RRP $NZ 30.00.



Bronwyn Lloyd: The Second Location (2011)


One of the points of genesis for this book of short stories, Bronwyn Lloyd’s first published collection (though she’s written numerous catalogue essays and contributed chapters to various Art History publications) was the Rita Angus Symposium at Te Papa in September 2008.

It was one of those rare occasions when one can almost feel a paradigm shift occurring. On the one side, there was an Academic establishment view which privileges analysis of surface forms and effects over the Original Sin of biographical research (the so-called “intentional fallacy” attributing agency and motivation to artists), on the other, a form of imaginative projection, fleshed out by careful contextual and archival research, which tries to reconstruct the inner world of a painter.

Bronwyn’s paper on the strange symbolic world inhabited by Rita Angus and her lover Douglas Lilburn, as revealed in the thirty years of letters she wrote him (bequeathed by him before his death to the Turnbull Library), seemed to move and fascinate the symposium audience. It definitely enraged some of the Art Historians. This was black magic! Worse: this was double heresy: Narrative and Symbolism in painting!

For a fuller account of the dispute that ensued, you can go to the blogpost I wrote about it at the time [http://mairangibay.blogspot.co.nz/2008/09/rita-angus-symposium.html]; for further information about the precise nature of Bronwyn’s claims about the folie à deux imaginative constructs built up by Rita and Douglas in the late 1940s, you can look at the online version of her PhD thesis Daemons & Dream Children: The Secret Lives of Rita Angus’s Symbolic Portraits (University of Auckland, 2010) [http://ritaland.blogspot.co.nz/].

This book of short stories, then, is more than it seems. While the foreword to her book admits that “the collection shows how the investigation of another person’s life has repercussions in your own,” the precise interplay of Bronwyn’s stories and the “creative research” required of anyone attempting to reconstruct the inner workings of another, dead person’s life, will not really become clear until one realises the extent of the identification.

The collection was, in fact, she tells me, at one time intended to alternate non-fictional chapters from the thesis with the stories, text fragments – even one poem and one short play – which she had composed over the course of writing it.

That would have been a much longer book: a book rather like Christa Wolf’s classic Cassandra, perhaps – where four lectures about the mythological implications of this character from Greek Legend are capped with a short novella.

While it’s possible to regret some of the cross-relations and complexities that could have been built up in such a book, it would almost certainly have been a far less readable and accessible text. And I think that the essence of Bronwyn’s work is precisely that: by focussing on the human dimensions of these very complex characters, Rita and Douglas, the degree to which they constructed themselves in a private world of literary and historical references (however garbled these sometimes were), she shows us the inevitable leakage between art and life.

Bronwyn’s break-up, divorce, difficult family relationships past and present are all on display in The Second Location. They have to be. As she herself has said to me, one can’t strip bare other people’s lives without being willing to do it to oneself. The distance and objectivity demanded of the critic or the historian is, finally, an illusion: we look for lessons in other people’s lives because we feel so direly in need of them ourselves.

In our turn, we must in our turn become exemplary: Look how that turned out, says Bronwyn’s books (at least by implication). She recreates the lessons experience has taught her: the perplexities and inconclusive endings that are often all we have to show for years of our lives.

The title for Bronwyn’s book comes from an old Oprah Winfrey Show episode about abduction: “Never get taken to the second location,” was the lesson that Oprah dinned into her audience’s head, as the tragic litany of interviews went on. Sage advice. But how do you prevent yourself ending up in that “second location” – the slippery pit in Silence of the Lambs, the plastic cocoon of Dexter’s basement?

However desirable it might be simply to get away, run clear, avoid entanglements, a “second location” lies in wait for most of us, at least. Those of us who’ve been through heartbreak, job loss, bankruptcy, relationship break-ups, that is … Are you one of us? Or do you still reside squarely in that illusory world of the first location, out in the light with nothing to hide?

My eldest brother, when he first read Bronwyn’s book, was amused by the portraits it painted of various members of our family. “But you must never do that to me,” he added in a fervent postscript. I guess that it is a little painful to catch aspects of oneself in print – and the exhortation to write one’s own story in revenge is not always a particularly practical one.

I think the thing to remember about a collection of this type, then, is that every aspect of it is dangerous. A friend of mine who co-edited a collection of Australian women’s poetry, told me that there was really only one subject for most of the writers who contributed work: their mothers. The book in fact ended up being titled Motherlode.

If you write down what you think about your mother, chances are she’ll never speak to you again. Sometimes it has to be done anyway. In Sylvia Plath’s case it seems to have been her father (not to mention that father-projection with a “Meinkampf look / And a love of the rack and the screw”: her husband Ted Hughes) who got most of the flack. But maybe that was the problem all along: the appalling difficulties she had with her beyond-domineering mother could never quite find expression in that saccharine series of family missives called Letters Home.

Bronwyn’s own mother’s experience of having an illegitimate child, subsequently offered for adoption, in the New Zealand of the late 1950s, is contrasted with Rita’s and her own miscarriages in the complex, interwoven story “The Shared Lunch.” Does the material become less painful through the alternating of paragraphs, the formal patterning of the piece? Probably not. But there is a sense in which it does make the events more manipulable, controllable. By writing them down, one can in some sense defuse them: temporarily, at least.

A similar distancing technique is applied in the story/poem “The Dismemberment of Austin Brown,” where a stylish red coat symbolises all that goes wrong with her parents’ relationship over the years. The children’s picturebook style in which the story is told seems somehow, again, if not to cauterise the wound, at any rate to aggravate it less.

There’s a lot of rage in this book. There’s also a lot of love. The one, I now firmly believe, could not exist without the other.

It’s dangerous to rock our complacent academic establishment by suggesting new ways of reading our artistic heritage. It sets up seismic shock waves through our idées reçues – damping things down again at once is all that many of us can think of at such times. What Bronwyn’s Second Location reveals is that probing your own life in similar ways is every bit as perilous. Can it be equally rewarding too? It’s a matter of opinion.

For myself, I believe this paradigm shift is here to stay. Any return to what Lincoln called “the dogmas of the quiet past” is doomed to failure. For better or worse, we must learn once again to life down in what Yeats called “the foul rag-and-bone shop of the heart.”

You’ll gather that this review, too, has been written in the spirit of the new paradigm. Bronwyn Lloyd is my wife; I’m in the book, along with various members of my family. I can’t really, then, write a falsely objective assessment of it as a text. Instead, I would say that it appears to have struck many chords with many readers. The fictional shaping of real events is a genre as old as writing itself – perhaps we’ve forgotten, in our over-specialised present, just how powerful and effective it can be.


(13-14/2/13)

Landfall 225 - My Auckland (2013): 186-89.

[1394 wds]


Landfall 225 (2013)






Thursday

Lugosi's Children (2011)


Bronwyn Lloyd: Lugosi’s Children (2011)

Foreword




Tod Browning’s 1931 movie Dracula may be a classic, but it’s far from a masterpiece. When you compare its stagey sets and static camerawork with the creepy intensity of Murnau’s Nosferatu (1922), or even James Whale’s campy (but stylish) Frankenstein, also released in 1931, the whole thing seems distinctly undercooked.

The one thing it really has going for it can be summed up in two words: Bela Lugosi. One might even go further, and ascribe the film’s undoubted success (then and later) to two immortal lines of dialogue:

[as Renfield arrives at the Count’s castle in Trasylvania, to the accompaniment of a pack of howling wolves]:
Count Dracula: Listen to them. Children of the night! What music they make!
[later, at dinner]:
Count Dracula: This is very old wine. I hope you will like it.
Renfield: Aren’t you drinking?
Count Dracula: I never drink ... wine!

It’s alleged that Lugosi’s English was so poor that he was forced to memorise his lines like a musician, purely as a collection of sounds. Accent, emphasis, pitch – everything had to be written out for him in advance.

The absurdly over-the-top phrasing of those two lines (“Vot Myoo-zeek they mehk!” & “Ay neffer dreenk - vayn!”) has therefore nothing to do with “acting” in the normal sense of the term. Lugosi was not carefully setting out to craft a character by the way he spoke the lines. They must have become familiar to him through the innumerable times he performed the part of Bram Stoker’s Count – first on stage, then in the Browning film, and then in the long melancholy series of parodies and sequels which provided his main source of income for the rest of his life. Perhaps he should be regarded as more of an opera singer than a screen actor in this, his greatest role.

Tim Burton’s 1994 film Ed Wood did a surprisingly good job of lending dignity to the sad saga of Lugosi’s last years in Los Angeles: a washed-up heroin addict, sinking ever lower in the Hollywood food chain, from ‘B’ movies to serials and screenfillers, and from there to a bit-part in what is generally acknowledged to be the worst movie of all time: Ed Wood’s immortal Plan 9 from Outer Space (1959).

On the one hand, then, we have the actual Béla Blaskó (1882–1956), better known under his stage-name “Bela Lugosi,” a not particularly talented Hungarian actor, who died in penury, and who owes any fame he might have had in his lifetime or subsequently to one part and one part only.

On the other hand, we have the strange, distorted cosmos of the Horror movie-buff, where Lugosi is locked in an eternal struggle with other larger-than-life figures such as Christopher Lee, Max Schreck, Gary Oldman, Frank Langella ... even Jack Palance (would you believe?) - for the title of “greatest Dracula of all time.” There’s no real contest, though. Lugosi is it. He may not have been the first Dracula, but he’s certainly the most enduring. There will never come a moment when someone, in some corner of the planet, is not watching the movie Dracula and thrilling to that immortal line: “Ay neffer dreenk - vayn!”

But why? Why is this second-rate Hungarian movie hack an immortal god of the silver screen when other, far more talented actors have gone to the dust to which they belong? What is it about vampire movies, with their dark shadows, lurking dangers, sharp sting of canine teeth and telltale trickles of blood on white nighties which absorbs and perturbs us still?

They are ridiculous. So much is obvious. Why, then, do they keep on being produced? Why does Buffy the Vampire Slayer have a worldwide cult following rivalled only by the cult following of the various stars of the Twilight movies, with new contenders – Underworld, The Lost Boys, The Vampire Diaries, Let the Right One In – constantly lurking in the wings, ready to assert their right to a place in the sun (or out of the sun, perhaps).

Pure escapism is the most obvious explanation, I suppose. There’s something comforting about so thoroughly comprehensible and controllable a terror as a vampire. Vampire-hunting, at any rate according to the classic Van Helsing rules of the profession, must be one of the safest extreme sports on earth. So long as you’ve provided yourself with enough holy water, fragments of consecrated wafers, silver crosses, and sharp, pointy wooden stakes – and are careful not to enter the vampire’s lair anytime near sunset – you should be able to dispatch him (or her) at your leisure. This extreme predictability, inherent to the genre, explains why slight variations on these conventions have to be dreamt up by each new film franchise.

It should also mean that people would get tired of these films after a while, though. Yet they don’t seem to. No matter how many vampire movies there have been, there doesn’t seem much doubt that they will continue to be made – and if not vampire movies, werewolf movies – and if not werewolf movies, Frankenstein, mad-scientist, “tampering with forces you do not understand” movies. Again, why?

The answer must surely be that there’s something in these movies which speaks to us in a special way. It’s hard to put one’s finger on what exactly that crucial x-factor might be, but it’s clear that it has something to do with the violence and extremity of their stories, but also by the confined and essentially logical character of the worlds they paint.

Vampires may be evil, but they do obey certain laws. Their status as supernatural beings does not exempt them from having to bow to other supernatural forces, such as crosses and churches and even folkloric superstitions such as garlic and that prohibition against crossing a threshold unbidden. They don’t so much call into question the laws of nature as confirm them on another level: “As above, so below.” Just as matter should always obey the laws of physics (in a rational cosmos, at any rate), so must occult beings obey the laws of their own shadowy world.

In terms of human psychology, though, the role of such beings, of the realms of the imagination they inhabit, may be even more vital than that. After all, the inability to find a language for the expression of grief, of terror, is one of the principal causes of psychosis and breakdown in ordinary people who’ve had to endure extraordinary events.

How adequate are our everyday words and thought-patterns to the experience of war, of massacre, of torture, of natural disaster? And yet these things happen all the time, to vast numbers of people – not just in foreign parts, not just in Transylvania or Nazi Germany, but in the humdrum streets of our own towns and cities.

We have no language for such things because we hope so profoundly not to experience them ourselves. It’s easy to be a voyeur, to gloat over the latest parade of victims on Oprah or Jerry Springer. Nor is it particularly difficult to feel sympathy for these other people who’ve had to see the benign face of their universe stripped away to reveal the blind horror beneath. To empathise truly with them, though – to realise that they are we – takes a bit more imagination, though. It involves acknowledging that all of us live in fear of one ultimate, unknowable terror: our own physical death.

Hence Gothic, hence vampire movies, hence Edgar Allan Poe, Bram Stoker, Francisco Goya … If we lived in some happy, rational kingdom of love and harmony we wouldn’t need them. That’s not going to happen anytime soon, though.

Lugosi’s children, then, are the reverse of escapists. They examine their own inner space for clues to the true nature of our experience of the world – in all its majesty and horror. Taxidermy, decay, oracles and horoscopes are all clues, potential maps of this numinous area where we confront our deepest hopes and fears.

It’s no real accident that the survivors of the second Christchurch earthquake were so unusually willing to lend an ear to the occult calculations of Moonman Ken Ring – that their first resort, their first need was for some certainty about the likelihood of a recurrence of this terrible event. Nor is it surprising that the first place they would look for it would be in the ringbound volumes of a latterday soothsayer.

Gothic and horror cinema, fiction and art provide us with a lens, a language, a means of grasping the shape of the horrific events that surround us. The subtlety and complexity of Poe’s “Fall of the House of Usher” may be intrinsically preferable in subtlety and craft to the crudity of Tod Browning’s cardboard sets and lurid camera-work, but in the deeper regions of the psyche such distinctions are not as important as one might think.

The standard response nowadays to traumatic experiences us to prescribe “counselling” – our one-size-fits-all panacea for all the ills of the world. But what precisely is one to say to the counsellor? How is one to express what has occurred, when the lack of any way of articulating the event is precisely the problem in the first place? One could do worse, perhaps, than go instead to examine these strange, dreamlike works of Lugosi’s children.

Their wisdom may be intuitive, the logic of darkness rather than that of the daylight world, but sometimes those can be the only answers one can bear to listen to.



(1-3/7/11)

Lugosi’s Children, Curated by Bronwyn Lloyd (27 August – 1 October 2011).
(Auckland: Objectspace, 2011): 2-3.
[PDF available at:
http://www.objectspace.org.nz/publications/viewPublication.php?documentCode=2984]

[1105 wds]

Lugosi’s Children (2011)