Thank you for the yummy essay and the photo of Sallie. Claire Dederer's "Monsters" was, I thought, a very good rumination on the difficulty of asshole artists and our ongoing love of their work. Can't speak to the copyediting.
On a tangent (perhaps that's allowed in this context?), and in case you don't already know it (as if), there's a nice bit in the documentary "Visions of Light" in which William Fraker, the DP for "Rosemary's Baby", talks about setting up the shot in which Ruth Gordon is on the phone. He had her all centered in the frame of the doorway, but Polanski was all, like, "no, no" and set it up with Gordon half hidden by the doorframe, with audience results that Fraker hadn't anticipated. It's ultimately an anecdote about how well Polanski understood his craft.
Tangent away! I love that documentary, and I love that story, including indeed the part where the entire audience leans over to see what's actually happening. Brilliant.
I also recall, though I couldn't find it today (I also didn't look too hard), that Polanski once commented that the reason the screenplay is so close to the novel (it's nearly verbatim, with trims) is because he didn't know at the time that one is allowed to make changes when adapting a book into a film. Who knows if that's really true, and yet.
P.S. Even the way Polanski edits down the visible text of the note left behind by the unfortunate Mrs. Gardenia is ingenious. I can't ever say too many praising things about that script.
Thank you, Linda. I intend to make good use of the contents of this essay—and some other of the lessons about verisimilitude Levin teaches us—later on.
Thank you for bringing up Munro. Coincidentally, we’ve been under the weather and had recently picked up our copy of Hateship Courtship, etc., as a diversion before we learned the news about her daughter. We put the book back on the shelf for now, but it probably won’t stay there. The writing is too brilliant. And if we were to shun Munro, to be consistent, we would never listen to another Richard Rodgers song again, and that’s just not going to happen.
This was a fun rabbit warren of information. Not being either a New Yorker or a film buff, I still enjoyed it. Nice to se Arlene Francis as w young woman. And Sally.
Oh, I love these tangents so much, since I love the film and the book. I want to go straight to New York (across the Atlantic for me) and see these places. I was also coming on here to mention Claire Dederer's brilliant Monsters but I see Linda Karell has beaten me to it.
I love love love all this Nancy Drew-ing to find out where Rosemary's Baby takes place. (I also did not know, until now, that there was a Wyoming. In Manhattan, that is.)
As for artists' behavior and appreciating the art they produce, I, too, am probably mostly governed by "do I like it?" I've sometimes tried to work out a kind of standard based on whether the artist's problematic life shows up in the substance of the work itself or, in the case of collaborative arts like the movies, whether it affected the other people involved. But I think that might be an elaborate way to cover up the fact that it still comes down to whether I enjoy the art or not.
Edited to add: so that's not how we italicize things here.
Thank you for the yummy essay and the photo of Sallie. Claire Dederer's "Monsters" was, I thought, a very good rumination on the difficulty of asshole artists and our ongoing love of their work. Can't speak to the copyediting.
On a tangent (perhaps that's allowed in this context?), and in case you don't already know it (as if), there's a nice bit in the documentary "Visions of Light" in which William Fraker, the DP for "Rosemary's Baby", talks about setting up the shot in which Ruth Gordon is on the phone. He had her all centered in the frame of the doorway, but Polanski was all, like, "no, no" and set it up with Gordon half hidden by the doorframe, with audience results that Fraker hadn't anticipated. It's ultimately an anecdote about how well Polanski understood his craft.
Tangent away! I love that documentary, and I love that story, including indeed the part where the entire audience leans over to see what's actually happening. Brilliant.
I also recall, though I couldn't find it today (I also didn't look too hard), that Polanski once commented that the reason the screenplay is so close to the novel (it's nearly verbatim, with trims) is because he didn't know at the time that one is allowed to make changes when adapting a book into a film. Who knows if that's really true, and yet.
P.S. Even the way Polanski edits down the visible text of the note left behind by the unfortunate Mrs. Gardenia is ingenious. I can't ever say too many praising things about that script.
Sure, bamboozle me with an unexpected photo of the world's best dog at the end of your text!
You'll get no sensible comments out of me today.
I show no mercy.
I am looking forward to reading “Twelve Ways of Looking at Rosemary's Baby.”
Thank you, Linda. I intend to make good use of the contents of this essay—and some other of the lessons about verisimilitude Levin teaches us—later on.
Thank you for bringing up Munro. Coincidentally, we’ve been under the weather and had recently picked up our copy of Hateship Courtship, etc., as a diversion before we learned the news about her daughter. We put the book back on the shelf for now, but it probably won’t stay there. The writing is too brilliant. And if we were to shun Munro, to be consistent, we would never listen to another Richard Rodgers song again, and that’s just not going to happen.
It’s like being on a brilliant merry-go-round here. I never want it to stop. Rosemary’s Baby is one of my favorite movies.
Thank you, Maggie. There are certain subjects I find inexhaustibly fascinating, and Rosemary's Baby is high on the list.
This was a fun rabbit warren of information. Not being either a New Yorker or a film buff, I still enjoyed it. Nice to se Arlene Francis as w young woman. And Sally.
Evelyn Brent AND the divine Mrs. Gabel?
Such, as Jo March was wont to observe, richness…
Oh, I love these tangents so much, since I love the film and the book. I want to go straight to New York (across the Atlantic for me) and see these places. I was also coming on here to mention Claire Dederer's brilliant Monsters but I see Linda Karell has beaten me to it.
I love love love all this Nancy Drew-ing to find out where Rosemary's Baby takes place. (I also did not know, until now, that there was a Wyoming. In Manhattan, that is.)
As for artists' behavior and appreciating the art they produce, I, too, am probably mostly governed by "do I like it?" I've sometimes tried to work out a kind of standard based on whether the artist's problematic life shows up in the substance of the work itself or, in the case of collaborative arts like the movies, whether it affected the other people involved. But I think that might be an elaborate way to cover up the fact that it still comes down to whether I enjoy the art or not.
Edited to add: so that's not how we italicize things here.