![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Our like may never, ever be seen again
Next in my ongoing series of attempts to convince myself that not everything that passes through my mind at stray moments is terminally uninteresting to others . . .
For the Fourth of July, I recently re-watched 1776 (1972) with a bunch of friends. Observing the conversational fallout over the next few days—an elevated incidence of aphorisms, tones of amazed frustration, and spontaneous sing-outs of, "Sit down, [X]!"—it struck me, not for the first time, that I imagine most viewers either sympathize with or see themselves as John Adams. He is a wonderfully appealing figure, especially as played by William Daniels; there is a reason a gold dollar coin of him sits on my shelf of accidental talismans between the salt-green fishing float and the four pearls I have found in mussels. By a similar token, I would be surprised if there were no fandom for Franklin, and with any luck even one for Stephen Hopkins. But does anyone watch 1776 and identify with John Dickinson? I confess that while I longed for years to sic the dybbuk of John Adams on the Bush administration just for the fireworks, I'd be kind of curious to see what the ghost of Dickinson—the historical semi-Quaker or the fictionalized antagonist—would have to say about the current trends of political conservatism.
In other news, I am very taken with this statement:
To illustrate: a portrait can be painted without a nose, but the nose will be present, so to speak, through its obvious absence; whereas no one would ever remark that a given still life was missing, say, its banana, or a given landscape its lake.
—Jonathan Kalb, Beckett in Performance (1991)
It makes me want to write "Still Life Without Banana." Bonus points to anyone who can paint one.
For the Fourth of July, I recently re-watched 1776 (1972) with a bunch of friends. Observing the conversational fallout over the next few days—an elevated incidence of aphorisms, tones of amazed frustration, and spontaneous sing-outs of, "Sit down, [X]!"—it struck me, not for the first time, that I imagine most viewers either sympathize with or see themselves as John Adams. He is a wonderfully appealing figure, especially as played by William Daniels; there is a reason a gold dollar coin of him sits on my shelf of accidental talismans between the salt-green fishing float and the four pearls I have found in mussels. By a similar token, I would be surprised if there were no fandom for Franklin, and with any luck even one for Stephen Hopkins. But does anyone watch 1776 and identify with John Dickinson? I confess that while I longed for years to sic the dybbuk of John Adams on the Bush administration just for the fireworks, I'd be kind of curious to see what the ghost of Dickinson—the historical semi-Quaker or the fictionalized antagonist—would have to say about the current trends of political conservatism.
In other news, I am very taken with this statement:
To illustrate: a portrait can be painted without a nose, but the nose will be present, so to speak, through its obvious absence; whereas no one would ever remark that a given still life was missing, say, its banana, or a given landscape its lake.
—Jonathan Kalb, Beckett in Performance (1991)
It makes me want to write "Still Life Without Banana." Bonus points to anyone who can paint one.
no subject
no subject
I think for the purposes of argument the statement assumes that a landscape has been constructed in which a lake is not necessary, therefore no one would miss it; but I was still seized with an instant desire to disprove it. I just don't have the technical know-how to do anything with a lake rather than a banana.