Total Pageviews

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

Rhode Island food; or, What the hell is a Wimpy Skippy?

Ri_food


I was meditating in the third-floor kitchen at the office the other day, staring out the window, when a refrigerator magnet caught my eye: CASERTA PIZZERIA. ORIGINATOR OF THE WIMPY SKIPPY.

 

 

Oh my God. I’d forgotten all about the Wimpy Skippy.

 

 

Now, tell me again: what the hell is a Wimpy Skippy?

 

 

Simple: it’s a spinach calzone with mozzarella, pepperoni, and black olives. Here’s the story of the W. S., told in Rhode Islandese by one of Da Guyz up at Caserta’s:

 

 

 

 

Listen: my local bakery makes spinach pies with mozzarella and pepperoni. So I don’t have to go traipsing up to Federal Hill to get one of theirs.

 

 

How about an Awful Awful? That was a Newport Creamery item: a giant milkshake, “awful big, awful good.” Their advertising slogan for it was the simplest possible phrase: “It’s a drink!” And best of all: if you drink three, you get one free.

 

 

And finally: the Jimmie Gimme. It’s an egg-and-ham sandwich (basically an Egg McMuffin) served at the Modern Diner in Pawtucket. It’s a little on the greasy side.

 

 

And don’t even get me started about New York System hot wieners. You can read all about them at this link.

 

 

(Why are we so obsessed with food? I’ve asked this question before, but I still don’t understand. Food’s necessary to our survival, but then again, so are air and water. We don’t talk about air all day long, or water. Why do we talk about food, and write books about it, and argue about it incessantly?)

 

 

(Heaven only knows.)

 

 

(Now let’s go downcity and get a Haven Brothers hot dog.)


 

 

Tuesday, April 9, 2013

The gold bug

Gold


Partner, who knows a lot about finance, was advising a friend recently on the purchase of gold. “I want it,” she said, “but what happens if the government collapses? Can I trade the gold for a quart of milk?”

 

 

He tried to explain the system to her. He even helped her to buy some small gold coins on the Internet, from a reliable dealer who offers decent prices. (She bought half an ounce of gold, so the coins will be very small. I think she expects to receive a chunk of gold about the size of a manhole cover.)

 

 

Why gold? It occurs naturally worldwide. It’s malleable and can be made into almost anything. It’s beautiful. It’s rare, and difficult to obtain.

 

 

It is, in Karl Marx’s terminology, a “fetish.” You can’t eat it, or benefit from its ownership in any natural way. But you know that you (and many others) are fascinated by it, and will give you outlandish amounts of useful goods (currency, food, clothing) in exchange for a small amount of it.

 

 

Gold will keep its “value” if even a vestige of the current civilization continues. People will still want it, and will barter valuable items for it. (Don’t barter it for milk, however. You can probably find something else around the house to barter for milk. Extra bedsheets? Candles? A family member?)

 

 

I’ve seen gold coins in museums, and I can vouch for the fact that they’re beautiful. They are also usually (as I said above) very small.  (I saw a great advert in Reader’s Digest recently offering gold coins for $150. The picture accompanying the advertisement made the coins look as if they were the size of Oreo cookies. Given the price, however, they can’t be larger than the nail of your little finger, and perhaps smaller than that.)

 

 

But gold enchants people.

 

 

Partner’s friend has been bitten by the gold bug.

 

 

She will never be the same.

 

 

(I’ve looked at the websites too. My goodness, those coins are pretty. And they’re not all that expensive . . . )


 

 

 

Monday, April 8, 2013

Movie review: "Oz the Great and Powerful"

Oz-the-great-and-powerful-poster-1

Partner and I saw “Oz the Great and Powerful,” with James Franco and Michelle Williams and Rachel Weisz and Mila Kunis, this past weekend. We knew the reviews hadn’t been great, but we knew also that it had done terrific box office the past few weeks, and that a number of my friends had seen it.

 

 

Um. Well . . .

 

 

I am, as you’d expect, a huge Ozphile. I love the 1939 movie (what gay man doesn’t?), and “Wicked” (both book and musical), and I own all fourteen of L. Frank Baum’s Oz books, and I have seen “The Wiz” and a couple of the other knockoff versions. It’s a rich mythology, and lots of people have had fun playing in the wonderland that Baum created.

 

 

But this new movie is a mess, frankly. It has some great bits: the opening credits are wonderful – an animated sequence of magic tricks – and there are some beautiful scenes along the way: gorgeous super-realistic color, flowers that are gems and musical instruments. But it tries to recapture the amiable magic of the 1939 movie, and it fails. There are all kinds of winking reminiscences of the old movie: a lion, and some scarecrows, and a reference to “having no heart,” and singing/dancing Munchkins.

 

As in the 1939 movie, we open in Kansas, in a sepia-toned black-and-white. The Wizard (Mr. Franco) is a sideshow conjuror and a womanizer. He gets in a hot-air balloon to escape from the circus strongman, who’s just found out that his girlfriend has been seeing the Wizard on the side.

 

 

Cue the tornado!

 

 

The Land of Oz, naturally, is super-Technicolor. We meet witches, and flying monkeys, and talking birds. The movie was filmed in 2D/3D, so there are lots of soaring / flying / coasting scenes; when the Wizard first gets to Oz, he rides down a waterfall in a way that reminded me exactly of the Splash Mountain ride at Disney World. (If there’s not an “Oz” ride in Disney World within ten years – provided this movie is a hit – I’ll eat my magical hat.)

 

 

You’d think, with all that background material, that the screenwriters would have had enough to work with.

 

 

But they ended up with a thin movie full of thin characters.

 

 

You know what? Save yourself the heartache. Go to Netflix and see “Wild at Heart” instead. It’s a very sly retelling of the Oz story, and it’s much better than “Oz the Great and Powerful”:

 

 

 


 

Sunday, April 7, 2013

For Sunday: Art Garfunkel sings "I Believe (When I Fall In Love It Will Be Forever)"

Garfunkel_i_believe


 

Art Garfunkel released his “Breakaway” album when I was in college. My friends and I listened to it incessantly. It’s sort of a theme album; it begins with heartfelt declarations of love (this is the first song on Side I), progresses through all kinds of ups and downs, and ends in heartbreak (the last song is “The Same Old Tears on a New Background”).

 

 

This song was written by Stevie Wonder. It has a strange ecstatic power, especially as performed here. I see that Josh Groban has covered it; I can’t imagine he improved on Garfunkel’s performance.

 

 

Enjoy.

 

 

 


 

 

 

Saturday, April 6, 2013

The Tolstoy museum

Tolstoy


Back in 1978 I spent a few days with a tour group in Moscow. The guides got tired of us after a while, and let us go off on our own. I noticed that some of the classic authors – Gorky, Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy – had small museums dedicated to them around the city, and I decided to visit the Tolstoy museum.

 

 

It took me forever to find it; it was an inconspicuous door on a side street. I rang, and two old ladies ushered me in, babbling in Russian (I knew only a few words in Polish, which is close to Russian, but not close enough for me to fake it most of the time.) They showed me the house, which was small but magnificent; it was Tolstoy’s pied-a-terre in Moscow, full of beautiful furniture, and manuscripts displayed everywhere.

 

 

Finally the old ladies brought me into the library. There were at least fifteen or twenty folding chairs set up, and I was the only visitor; they sat me down in the front row, and got out an old Edison cylinder machine, and got it set up, and –  well, I didn’t know what to expect.

 

 

Finally, from the Edison cylinder, I heard something: a man’s voice, scratchy, evidently reading from something. The two old ladies were staring at me, waiting for my response.

 

 

 

Aha. This was a recording of Tolstoy himself, reading (presumably) from one of his own books. And the museum ladies were waiting for my response.

 

 

I gave them everything I had. I told them it was good, in Polish (which they may or may not have understood). I smiled.

 

 

And they seemed to be very happy, having shared their museum with me.

 

 

This is one of my best memories from my trip to Russia. It seems like a dream now, of course; I barely remember the details of the house, or of the sound of Tolstoy’s voice, or what the old ladies looked like.

 

 

But I do remember how lovely I felt as I left. 


 

Friday, April 5, 2013

Bacteria

Bacteria


I lose things all the time. In the office, it’s usually my coffee cup. I bought two identical cups, just so that I could lose one and not disrupt my routine.

 

 

One of them disappeared about two months ago, but, just the other day, I found it.

 

 

O children it was horrible. There’d been a little coffee in the cup, which had dried and bred some kind of horrible fungus / bacterial stew. There were odd geometric structures at the bottom of the cup that looked like something out of a science-fiction novel.

 

 

When I tried to rinse out the cup, the bacterial remains not only stayed put, but they stayed dry: they repelled water as if they were made of wax. Not even hot water made a difference. Detergent wetted them a little, but not much.

 

 

Finally I filled the cup with rubbing alcohol and put it aside.

 

 

Who knows what happened in that cup? Maybe whole bacterial / fungal civilizations lived and died and fought and loved. Maybe – eep! – they’re still there, wearing microscopic scuba gear and zipping through their new alcohol sea.

 

 

I don’t know.

 

 

Hmm.  Even if I ever get it clean, do you think I’ll ever have the nerve to drink out of that cup again?

 

 

And does anyone out there own an autoclave?


 

Thursday, April 4, 2013

Allies

Allies


The Supreme Court heard arguments about two gay-marriage issues last week: California’s Proposition 8, which declares (by popular vote) that gay marriage is out of the question, and the Defense of Marriage Act, enacted by the usually-smarter Bill Clinton, which declares that (for federal purposes) marriage can only ever be between a man and a woman.

 

 

The passage of Proposition 8 implies that voters can grant or deny civil rights.

 

 

DOMA creates a situation in which married gay couples can still be denied federal benefits.

 

 

You can guess (if you don’t already know) where I stand on both issues, but here are some thoughts:

 

 

-         Can a referendum really decide a civil rights issue? I’m fine with the voters electing representatives, and deciding on bonds issues, and so forth. But I’m pretty sure that, if civil rights for black people had been put to a vote in the sovereign state of Mississippi in 1964, the vote would have gone badly for black people.

-         Much has been said and written about “marriage.” Isn’t “civil union” enough for gay people (in the states which grant it)? Well, not so much, since “civil union” almost never grants the same rights as “marriage.” If Partner and I were in a civil union, most or all of the local hospitals would be within their rights to deny either of us the right to visit the other. (Most or all of them don’t – Rhode Island is surprisingly gay-friendly – but the law permits them to be far more restrictive than they are. And the Catholic Diocese of Providence is extraordinarily gay-unfriendly.)

-         Someone on Facebook suggested “holy matrimony” as a substitute for the Catholic / Baptist / etc. word “marriage.” After all, pretty much every City Hall grants “marriage licenses,” and City Hall is no place for religious ceremony. So: if the Holy Roman Catholic Church doesn’t like gay marriage, it doesn’t have to perform them; that would be allowing two men to enter “holy matrimony.” But it must acknowledge that two men are civilly and legally “married,” just as they acknowledge Protestant marriages and Jewish marriages and Muslim marriages and purely-City-Hall marriages.

 

 

Over the past few weeks, a lot of my straight Facebook friends have posted pro-gay marriage messages and images. People at work whom I’ve known casually for five, or ten, or twenty years, have suddenly come forward and hugged me. (Partner reports similar behavior in his office.)

 

 

These are “allies”: straight people, people whose rights are not in question, who are coming forward to say that they support our right to marry.

 

 

I thank all our allies: Mary, and Diane, and Paul, and the rest. They are wonderful people.

 

 

And who cares what the Supreme Court decides?

 

 

We know we’re right.

 

 

And we will win in the end.


 

Wednesday, April 3, 2013

Unenchanted April

Unenchanted_april


Poets used to love springtime. Remember Chaucer?:

 

 

Whan that Aprille with his shoures soote

The droghte of Marche hath perced to the roote,

And bathed every veyne in swich licour,

Of which vertu engendred is the flour;

Whan Zephirus eek with his swete breeth

Inspired hath in every holt and heeth

The tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne

Hath in the Ram his halfe cours y-ronne,

And smale fowles maken melodye,

That slepen al the night with open ye . . .

 

 

 

Or how about some Shakespeare?

 

 

It was a lover and his lass,

 

With a hey, and a ho, and a hey nonino,

 

That o'er the green corn-field did pass,

 

In the spring time, the only pretty ring time,

 

When birds do sing, hey ding a ding, ding;

Sweet lovers love the spring.

 

 

 

Eh.

 

 

 

I myself do not much like the spring. It can be very pretty, granted, and I do think crocuses and daffodils are very nice. But there’s something a little – I don’t know – relentless about it. And I notice that, over the past hundred years, a few poets seem to be agreeing with me.

 

 

 

How about that ol’ T. S. Eliot?:

 

 

 

April is the cruellest month, breeding

 

Lilacs out of the dead land, mixing

 

Memory and desire, stirring

 

Dull roots with spring rain.

 

 

 

 

But my personal favorite is New England’s own Edna St. Vincent Millay:

 

 

 

To what purpose, April, do you return again?

Beauty is not enough.

You can no longer quiet me with the redness

Of little leaves opening stickily.

I know what I know.

The sun is hot on my neck as I observe

The spikes of the crocus.

The smell of the earth is good.

It is apparent that there is no death.

But what does that signify?

Not only under ground are the brains of men

Eaten by maggots.

Life in itself

Is nothing,

An empty cup, a flight of uncarpeted stairs.

It is not enough that yearly, down this hill,

April

Comes like an idiot, babbling and strewing flowers.

 

 

 

I love those last few lines.

 

 

 

Happy springtime, everyone!

 


 

Tuesday, April 2, 2013

Book report: Anthony Powell's "Venusberg"

Clipboard01


There’s a certain kind of novel that was produced in great quantity by British writers in the 1920s and 1930s and 1940s and 1950s.  They are usually brief, and set in Asia, or Eastern Europe, or Africa.  The characters are almost entirely expatriates – not only British, but Canadians, Americans, exiled Russians, and are often diplomats, or con men, or spies.  The atmosphere is usually light, until something oddly serious happens: an assassination, a declaration of war, some tragic event. 

 

 

These novels were (I think) a response to the British Empire’s expansion through the world.  There were enormous numbers of British people working in countries all over the world, living in unfamiliar environments, clinging to one another (and to other English-speakers and Europeans) for a sense of community.

 

 

Think of Kipling’s “Kim” as a progenitor of the genre.  Think of Graham Greene, with his African and Asian and Caribbean comedy/dramas like “A Burnt-Out Case” and “The Quiet American” and “The Comedians” and “Our Man in Havana.”  Think of Olivia Manning’s “Balkan Trilogy” (did I ever tell you that I knew someone who knew her?).  Think of Lawrence Durrell’s “Alexandria Quartet.”  Think of Doris Lessing’s “Children of Violence” series.  Think of Muriel Spark’s first story, “The Seraph and the Zambezi,” and her novella “The Go-Away Bird.” Think of Rose Macaulay’s wonderful “The Towers of Trebizond."

 

 

I recently discovered a prime example of the genre: Anthony Powell’s “Venusberg.”

 

 

It’s a simple story: a British journalist, Lushington, goes to an unnamed Baltic country on assignment.  Lushington is in love with a Englishwoman who is, in turn, hopelessly in love with the local British attaché, who (perversely and carelessly) doesn’t care about her at all. 

 

 

Whom do we meet in our unnamed Baltic country? Not one but two displaced Russian counts, one melancholy and doomed, the other probably a fake.  A local woman who’s only too eager to have an affair with Lushington.  Her husband, a clueless eminent local professor.  An American embassy worker who rattles on endlessly about virtue and progress and the future, while pronouncing himself a man of few words.  A local military officer named Waldemar, who is very pleasant and sincere, and who is trying very hard to learn how to be a true European.

 

 

We never discover the name of the country we’re in.  Everyone is speaking English most of the time, with a little bad French thrown in.  Now and then we’re told that someone speaks “in an unknown language”; the joke is that it’s probably the local language, which few of the main characters speak.

 

 

Love affairs happen.  Death happens.  Lushington goes back to England.

 

 

All in one hundred and sixty pages.

 

 

Here is Powell’s epigraph for the novel, which explains the title:

 

 

“Here, according to popular tradition, is situated the grotto of Venus, into which she enticed the knight Tannhauser; fine view from the top.”

 

 

From the sublime to the absurd: from the airy beauty of folklore and mythology to the flat pronouncements of a travel guide.

 

 

"Venusberg" is sad and funny and lovely, and gave me a few hours of pleasure, and it will stay with me.

 

 

Try it, if you can find it in your dusty old public library.  You may like it.


 

Monday, April 1, 2013

Movie review: "Mr. Belvedere Rings The Bell"

Belvedere

 

Seen not long ago on TCM: “Mr. Belvedere Rings The Bell,” from 1951, with Clifton Webb and Joanne Dru and Zero Mostel and Hugh Marlowe and a host of others.

 

 

Clifton Webb's an author / lecturer who wants to pep up an old folks' home; Hugh Marlowe is the good-but-stodgy minister running the place; Joanne Dru is the minister's assistant, who sort of falls in love with Clifton Webb, but who's really in love with Hugh Marlowe. There are also a passel of of wonderful older character actors and actresses playing the denizens of the old folks' home.

 

 

And then there’s Zero Mostel, folks. I probably would have switched away, if not for him. 1951? He was testifying in front of the House Un-American Activities Committee  that year. Zero didn’t name names, however. It was terrible for his career in the 1950s, but (eventually) he came back, and he triumphed.

 

 

In this movie, Zero is (as usual) balding and sweaty and amoral, but finally very sweet. And brilliant, as always. I can only wonder what was going through his head while he was acting in this movie. Was he testifying to Congress while acting in this? Jesus.

 

 

And Clifton Webb (who, for me, will always be Waldo Lydecker in “Laura,” typing in the bathtub), is wonderful.

 

 

As a movie, “Mr. Belvedere Rings The Bell” is a pleasant nothing. As a period piece, it's interesting. As a time capsule, and an artifact of human culture, it's priceless.