Since for most of my adult life I have not had the time or quite enough excess money to undergo a course of really good psychiatric treatment, I have had to try to figure out on my own some possible causes for why my mind and will turned out the way they did, which has been a source of considerable dissatisfaction for me over the years. Some time ago now, before it became a well known and widely diagnosed condition, I read about Asperger's Syndrome in a fairly highbrow publication, where it was presented as an eccentric and even interesting condition associated with stronger than ordinary intellects, and I thought that some of the characteristics of it were not unlike things I had observed in myself. I made the mistake of mentioning this to my wife at the time. In those days of the late 90s and early 2000s when it was more associated with people who were difficult and odd but generally quite brilliant she was hesitant to attribute the condition to me, but once it entered the mainstream and began to be treated more as something of a handicap and socially undesirable (a diagnosis qualifies you for special education in school) she seemed to become much more open to, even convinced of the possibility that I indeed had this, with connotations that seemed to me more negative than positive, as if to infer that had I been properly identified and labeled as being this sort of person earlier in life, for which such a clear definition did not exist at the time, she would had better insight as to my likely future and perhaps have been able to avoid getting so involved with me. And this for something that I have never been clinically diagnosed as having but mentioned in passing once 20 years ago.
I came across the "Lost Child" (also known sometimes as "The Invisible Boy") while reading a history about Ronald Reagan's rise to prominence. Reagan apparently struggled with Invisible Boy type behavior in the early part of his childhood but somehow managed to overcome it between the ages of 10 and 14 or so, to which some psychologists attribute the subsequent lifelong artificial-seeming nature of his personality and worldview. One website I found ("Dysfunctional Family Roles") describes this condition thus:
"The Lost Child is usually known as "the quiet one" or "the dreamer". The Lost Child is the invisible child. They try to escape the family situation by making themselves very small and quiet. (S)He stays out of the way of problems and spends a lot of time alone...Because the Lost Child is rarely in trouble, the family can say, "He's a good kid. Everything seems fine in his life, so things can't be too bad in the family." This child avoids interactions with other family members and basically disappears. They become loners, or very shy. The Lost Child seeks the privacy of his or her own company to be away from the family chaos. Because they don't interact, they never have a chance to develop important social and communication skills. The Lost Child often has poor communication skills, difficulties with intimacy and in forming relationships. They deny that they have any feelings and "don't bother getting upset." They deal with reality by withdrawing from it."
This admittedly sounds a lot like me. Some things about my behavior that I think are related to this include:
1. While it may not seen that way from my persona on the blog, in real life I almost always accept the position that other people's goals and desires and successes are more important than mine, and I am very conscientious about never being actively obstructive to them. I used to have something of an idea that if I possessed the value I believed myself to possess, that I would in time be able to achieve some things that I wanted anyway without ever having to inconvenience anyone else (in effect I would be rewarded for not being obnoxiously pushy), but it is pretty obvious now that the world does not work that way.
2. Despite having some self-esteem, which is necessary to being able to function and go out in public at all, I have always tended to avoid interacting much with other people, usually because it seemed impossible that I would have anything to say to them that would be interesting to them, and especially when the case was vice-versa. There are in truth very few people I know at any given time that I have any interest in talking to anyway, but at this point in my life I cannot really do it because I am so long out of practice unless the other person is able to engage me nearly on my approximate level a good portion of the time, which seems to be rare.
3. It is true that most of my mental engagement with life, and even with language itself, in my youth was through older books and to a lesser extent older movies, and as such I have never had any success socially with people whose minds are informed entirely by the contemporary environment. This is why I will always maintain that St John's was on the whole good for me, because everyone there has some degree of this kind of consciousness of the past. Since leaving school I have met very few people possessing any amount of normal attractiveness with whom I have been able to establish any rapport. Of this small number most either seemed to come from large religious families or have gone to the same kind of small, unorthodox or anachronistic schools that I went to.
4. One of my hopes in having so many children and why I was for the most part on board with doing that was my consciousness throughout my life of always being alone, not having anyone with any force helping me or ever being on my side, and I thought that having a lot of siblings might help to mitigate those kinds of problems. I am not sure that it is quite working out that way with my older children, though to me their high school years do not appear to be as full of the Sturm und Drang that I remember having gone through myself, though it is possible I am not attentive to it. I also don't know how much help in navigating this 21st century I and the rest of the family will be for anyone either, though given the effort put into it I have to believe it will be something.
There was another point I wanted to hit on but I lost it, cannot remember what it was now.
I heard this song from my later youth on the radio the other day for the first time in some years, and remembered that I liked it. I couldn't find a vintage MTV video of it, but I think this one of what looks like someone's girlfriend wandering around is actually better (though apparently the city is San Francisco, not New York, though I would not know whether it really was San Francisco).
I remember how all the cool people, even if they were otherwise dedicated U2 fans, trashed this song when it came out. I don't really get what's wrong with it, it's catchy, and the lyrics in the beginning of the song about arriving in New York in December in the rain and hearing a song on the local radio evokes a real feeling of the excitement and thrill of such an arrival, I have had similar feelings, or close to them, upon arriving there by train at that time of year, when I was younger. The critics seemed to think that the attempt to pay homage to Billie Holliday was, at best, cheesy, but on the whole pretentious or ridiculous. I don't know. I like listening to Billie Holliday in the right atmosphere or in the right company, though she was never a great favorite of mine. I think the U2 song works, at this remove in time I like the enthusiasm and the joie de vivre even if all of the lines don't strike a perfect note.
Thursday, April 11, 2019
Wednesday, April 03, 2019
TV & Movies Update
I am almost all the way caught up. This is not, alas, a particularly inspiring group.
The Young Pope (TV Show--2016)
This came up in one of the internet search games I use to pick out movies to watch. I have not really seen any of the myriad high quality made-for-cable TV series that have been so popular over the last decade so I thought I would give this a try. There were 10 hour-long episodes. At the time, which I think was last summer, I found it mildly interesting, but looking back I don't think it was really worth the time I had to invest in it (It could be asked whether the time I spend reading books, many of them outdated and of little apparent contemporary value, is any more worthwhile. It is worthwhile to the extent that I really do enjoy it, because I really have trained myself to enjoy it, but it does seem to serve me primarily as an escape from the actual questions and problems that are too overwhelming for me to contend with and resolve in reality. I don't think the reading at this point holds much benefit for my mind in this important regard). It stars Jude Law as the first American Pope who is chosen as a compromise candidate because the really powerful and not morally admirable people in the Vatican think they will be able to easily control him but he takes wholly unanticipated positions and actions which seem to baffle them. I was never really sure what it was supposed to be about. It's a great looking show, as most shows seem to be these days. I admit to having had concerns that it was going to be a Hollywood production that would be unable to restrain itself from gleefully piling on against Catholics and the Church, so I was pleased to find out that it was largely written and made by Italians, who at least treat the institution with the seriousness it deserves. Diane Keaton, whom I cannot stand, is unfortunately in this as a nun. Jude Law's Pope leads a fairly ascetic life, certainly compared to most of the other church officials. His main vices are smoking and drinking Diet Coke at breakfast.
There was a pretty catchy Italian pop song in it that I will forget about if I don't mention it here.
Young Soul Rebels (1991)
I'm not sure that Giants jersey is historically authentic for 1977.
This is a British movie set in 1977 about young gay black men who are into DJ'ing and circulating cassettes of soul music. Needless to say, they are very much out of the mainstream of British society in 1977, a point emphasized by the contrast of Queen Elizabeth's 25-year Jubilee that is taking place in the background of the film. Of course nowadays it might be increasingly the case that Queen Elizabeth is the one who is out of the mainstream of British society, but that is an idle digression. The opening scene features a murder during a gay sex encounter in a London park at night, which was provocative but didn't get the movie going on the right foot for me, and in truth I never really got into it, though I am sure it is very good if you are the sort of person who would get into this sort of thing. I was never quite able to make it to being that sort of person however.
Barabbas (1961)
I was looking forward to this lesser-known Biblical epic from the era of Ben-Hur and Spartacus, which, if not as celebrated as these other films, I anticipated as perhaps sharing some of their more agreeable qualities (and yes, I know agreeable is a strange word to use about movies that feature people being drowned by having their heads held down in pots of boiling soup and widescreen shots of hundreds of wretched people nailed to crucifixes stretching away to the horizon. Perhaps memorable was the better word, as those movies are memorable). I had also recently read the book from which it was adapted, which I had liked. This movie was slow, however, and it dragged, and it was pretty relentlessly dark, and it wasn't memorable to me, or perhaps I was not in the right frame of mind at the time that I saw it, because I see it has good reviews. It stars the legendary macho actors Anthony Quinn (in the title role) and Jack Palance, as well as Ernest Borgnine and the Italian actress Silvana Mangano.
Secrets of the Cross (2009)
This is a National Geographic TV series about "mysteries" of the Bible, such as the tomb of Jesus or the truth about Mary Magdalene. I found it rather boring and unpersuasive, I guess. There was something interesting that I learned at the time, but I didn't write it down and I've forgotten what it was now. I imagined it was going to be something like a Rick Steves travelogue meets Joseph Campbell, because the show featured a number of what appeared to be oddball academics, mostly British, on location in the Holy Land, but it didn't come off in any kind of compelling way.
You should trust me that 1) sometimes I really do like things, and 2) that I will tell you if I do. But I am not finding much I like lately. I may have to go back to my old system of only watching 5-star rated classics soon, at least for a while.
Die Another Day (2002)
I don't know why I even watched this all the way through. It's one of the "modern" James Bond movies (although almost 20 years old now) and I suppose I thought something might happen in it that would be interesting to me, but that did not occur. I have never actually seen any of the original James Bond movies from the 60s, which are supposed, I think, to have a kind of British charm that set them a little apart from your run of the mill action films, but anything redolent of old England is completely dead in this even with the appearances of John Cleese and Judi Dench in the cast. Even having been made in 2002 the "action" and atmosphere are way too 'tech' influenced for me to understand, or care about. Really the whole thing was a ridiculous waste of my time.
This girl (Rosamund Pike) was attractive. But only sexually accessible to a James Bond level man.
The Jewel in the Crown (1984)
Highly regarded 14 episode Masterpiece Theatre type British TV series from the Brideshead Revisited era, based on the even more highly regarded Raj Quartet novels by Paul Scott, which I have not read. I watched these on DVD and did not realize until the end of the very last episode, when I idly pushed the "settings" button, that there was an option to watch each episode with the original Alistair Cooke introduction, which would have been the piece de resistance for TV viewing nostalgia. But that did not happen.
Where to begin with this...The pace and the writing and the overall lack of freneticism are much more novelistic than most things being produced now are. Needless to say it was much more attuned to the way my mind processes stories and information. Of course the world moves on, no one would really wish it otherwise (though they might take issue with the particular directions it has moved into), but it is striking to see at a distance of 35 years how familiar and natural it is to encounter the forms of one's upbringing. There is no way to put this without sounding ridiculous either, but the (non-Indian) actors in this are to me strikingly "English" physically in a deep sort of way that I do not detect in more recent generations. I grant that they are actors, and are in general finer-featured and expressive in a way that likely makes them stand out from the general population anyway, and also that we are doubtless influenced by the kinds of faces and cultural tics that served as identifiers in our formative years. But certainly the people in this are more evocative of the tea-sipping, rose garden-cultivating, well-lettered, reserved and somewhat forbidding people of popular imagination than the likes of say, Russell Brand and Keira Knightley are.
This story, for the unaware reader, is about a number of ends--the end of World War II, the end of British rule in India, and I suppose of the imperial attitude in general. As you know I love stories about the ends of great and epic events when the old order is in the process of being swept away but the new one is not yet fully in place, so I liked this aspect of the series. Most of the British characters are from the higher social classes, and for the most part the sympathies of the story are with them, though a few of them are depicted negatively. Such persons from lower social strata as make it into the story are however either not terribly substantial or are depicted as vulgar or not able to perceive what is going on. At one point one of the well-bred characters observes of a socially ambitious officer that he (the officer) didn't realize that no one (meaning no one who mattered) cared about the empire anymore, and that was that. But there was a lot about this that I liked, and certainly it was much better than anything else I had seen in a while.
The Young Pope (TV Show--2016)
This came up in one of the internet search games I use to pick out movies to watch. I have not really seen any of the myriad high quality made-for-cable TV series that have been so popular over the last decade so I thought I would give this a try. There were 10 hour-long episodes. At the time, which I think was last summer, I found it mildly interesting, but looking back I don't think it was really worth the time I had to invest in it (It could be asked whether the time I spend reading books, many of them outdated and of little apparent contemporary value, is any more worthwhile. It is worthwhile to the extent that I really do enjoy it, because I really have trained myself to enjoy it, but it does seem to serve me primarily as an escape from the actual questions and problems that are too overwhelming for me to contend with and resolve in reality. I don't think the reading at this point holds much benefit for my mind in this important regard). It stars Jude Law as the first American Pope who is chosen as a compromise candidate because the really powerful and not morally admirable people in the Vatican think they will be able to easily control him but he takes wholly unanticipated positions and actions which seem to baffle them. I was never really sure what it was supposed to be about. It's a great looking show, as most shows seem to be these days. I admit to having had concerns that it was going to be a Hollywood production that would be unable to restrain itself from gleefully piling on against Catholics and the Church, so I was pleased to find out that it was largely written and made by Italians, who at least treat the institution with the seriousness it deserves. Diane Keaton, whom I cannot stand, is unfortunately in this as a nun. Jude Law's Pope leads a fairly ascetic life, certainly compared to most of the other church officials. His main vices are smoking and drinking Diet Coke at breakfast.
There was a pretty catchy Italian pop song in it that I will forget about if I don't mention it here.
Young Soul Rebels (1991)
This is a British movie set in 1977 about young gay black men who are into DJ'ing and circulating cassettes of soul music. Needless to say, they are very much out of the mainstream of British society in 1977, a point emphasized by the contrast of Queen Elizabeth's 25-year Jubilee that is taking place in the background of the film. Of course nowadays it might be increasingly the case that Queen Elizabeth is the one who is out of the mainstream of British society, but that is an idle digression. The opening scene features a murder during a gay sex encounter in a London park at night, which was provocative but didn't get the movie going on the right foot for me, and in truth I never really got into it, though I am sure it is very good if you are the sort of person who would get into this sort of thing. I was never quite able to make it to being that sort of person however.
Barabbas (1961)
I was looking forward to this lesser-known Biblical epic from the era of Ben-Hur and Spartacus, which, if not as celebrated as these other films, I anticipated as perhaps sharing some of their more agreeable qualities (and yes, I know agreeable is a strange word to use about movies that feature people being drowned by having their heads held down in pots of boiling soup and widescreen shots of hundreds of wretched people nailed to crucifixes stretching away to the horizon. Perhaps memorable was the better word, as those movies are memorable). I had also recently read the book from which it was adapted, which I had liked. This movie was slow, however, and it dragged, and it was pretty relentlessly dark, and it wasn't memorable to me, or perhaps I was not in the right frame of mind at the time that I saw it, because I see it has good reviews. It stars the legendary macho actors Anthony Quinn (in the title role) and Jack Palance, as well as Ernest Borgnine and the Italian actress Silvana Mangano.
Secrets of the Cross (2009)
This is a National Geographic TV series about "mysteries" of the Bible, such as the tomb of Jesus or the truth about Mary Magdalene. I found it rather boring and unpersuasive, I guess. There was something interesting that I learned at the time, but I didn't write it down and I've forgotten what it was now. I imagined it was going to be something like a Rick Steves travelogue meets Joseph Campbell, because the show featured a number of what appeared to be oddball academics, mostly British, on location in the Holy Land, but it didn't come off in any kind of compelling way.
You should trust me that 1) sometimes I really do like things, and 2) that I will tell you if I do. But I am not finding much I like lately. I may have to go back to my old system of only watching 5-star rated classics soon, at least for a while.
Die Another Day (2002)
I don't know why I even watched this all the way through. It's one of the "modern" James Bond movies (although almost 20 years old now) and I suppose I thought something might happen in it that would be interesting to me, but that did not occur. I have never actually seen any of the original James Bond movies from the 60s, which are supposed, I think, to have a kind of British charm that set them a little apart from your run of the mill action films, but anything redolent of old England is completely dead in this even with the appearances of John Cleese and Judi Dench in the cast. Even having been made in 2002 the "action" and atmosphere are way too 'tech' influenced for me to understand, or care about. Really the whole thing was a ridiculous waste of my time.
This girl (Rosamund Pike) was attractive. But only sexually accessible to a James Bond level man.
The Jewel in the Crown (1984)
Highly regarded 14 episode Masterpiece Theatre type British TV series from the Brideshead Revisited era, based on the even more highly regarded Raj Quartet novels by Paul Scott, which I have not read. I watched these on DVD and did not realize until the end of the very last episode, when I idly pushed the "settings" button, that there was an option to watch each episode with the original Alistair Cooke introduction, which would have been the piece de resistance for TV viewing nostalgia. But that did not happen.
Where to begin with this...The pace and the writing and the overall lack of freneticism are much more novelistic than most things being produced now are. Needless to say it was much more attuned to the way my mind processes stories and information. Of course the world moves on, no one would really wish it otherwise (though they might take issue with the particular directions it has moved into), but it is striking to see at a distance of 35 years how familiar and natural it is to encounter the forms of one's upbringing. There is no way to put this without sounding ridiculous either, but the (non-Indian) actors in this are to me strikingly "English" physically in a deep sort of way that I do not detect in more recent generations. I grant that they are actors, and are in general finer-featured and expressive in a way that likely makes them stand out from the general population anyway, and also that we are doubtless influenced by the kinds of faces and cultural tics that served as identifiers in our formative years. But certainly the people in this are more evocative of the tea-sipping, rose garden-cultivating, well-lettered, reserved and somewhat forbidding people of popular imagination than the likes of say, Russell Brand and Keira Knightley are.
This story, for the unaware reader, is about a number of ends--the end of World War II, the end of British rule in India, and I suppose of the imperial attitude in general. As you know I love stories about the ends of great and epic events when the old order is in the process of being swept away but the new one is not yet fully in place, so I liked this aspect of the series. Most of the British characters are from the higher social classes, and for the most part the sympathies of the story are with them, though a few of them are depicted negatively. Such persons from lower social strata as make it into the story are however either not terribly substantial or are depicted as vulgar or not able to perceive what is going on. At one point one of the well-bred characters observes of a socially ambitious officer that he (the officer) didn't realize that no one (meaning no one who mattered) cared about the empire anymore, and that was that. But there was a lot about this that I liked, and certainly it was much better than anything else I had seen in a while.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
