Skip to main content
Category

Joe Cillo

Joe
Cillo

Cleanliness and Fragrances — Reviews and Essay

By Joe Cillo

Cleanliness and Fragrances — Review Essay

 

Fragrance Reviews begin at the end of this essay. 

 

Because of the savour of thy good ointments thy name is an ointment poured forth, therefore do the virgins love thee.      Song of Songs 1:30

Who is this that cometh out of the wilderness like pillars of smoke, perfumed with myrrh and frankincense, with all powders of the merchant?   Song of Songs 3:6

 

 

Most people, throughout most of history, in most times and places, most of the time, stunk.  Left unattended the human body will stink to high heaven in a very short time.  It is eminently natural to stink.  It is said that the Mongol army could not launch a surprise attack because it was possible to smell them from twenty miles away.  They prided themselves on never bathing.  They were barbarians.  The Mongols did not torture people to death, unlike most civilized societies of their time (Weatherford, pp. 115-16).  The Romans and most other civilized societies made torture a public spectacle to entertain and intimidate their citizenry.  They were sadistic.  What made the Romans civilized and the Mongols barbarians was that the Romans took baths and the Mongols stunk.  The Mongols believed that a person’s body odor was part of their soul (Weatherford, p. 12) , and this probably was part of the reason they refused to bathe — in addition to the scarcity of water on the Central Asian steppe.

It is the practice of bathing, the attendance on personal hygiene, the mitigation of offensive odor from the body, rather than moral superiority, that distinguishes civilized people from uncivilized.  Not stinking, or actually smelling good, is the mark of civilization.  One of the most commendable achievements of modern capitalism is that it has made people smell better.

In former times the practice of bathing was much less common and human body odor was ubiquitous, although attitudes toward body odor and bathing are highly variable from culture to culture (Ashenburg, Introduction).  The ancient Egyptians were known for being fastidious about bathing and personal cleanliness (Ashenburg, p. 6).  They were one of the earliest civilizations.

It was Christian hatred of the body that brought about the demise of the Roman public baths and ushered in a long era of despising and devaluing bodily cleanliness and sanitation (Ashenburg, p. 58f.)  From the 16th to the 18th centuries it was not unusual for people to go for a year or more without ever bathing.  Even the aristocracy was noted for rank malodor (Ashenburg, Ch. 4).  Queen Elizabeth I bathed once a month “whether she needed it or not” (Ashenburg, p. 99).  If the queen only bathed once a month, imagine what the rest of the people were like.  It was a different time.

This long era of filth and stink in the western world began to recede in the last half of the eighteenth century and accelerated in the nineteenth, especially with the advent of running water in the home.

As cities expanded, and people worked close to one another in crowded offices and factories, they grew unhappily aware of the smells produced by their own bodies and those of others.  The arrival of women in the work world accelerated this new sensitivity.  The fastidiousness that had first surfaced, tentatively, in late eighteenth-century Europe was becoming an American obsession.  At the same time, prosperity was at an all time high.  People could afford the products that would enable them to live in a smell-less zone, a safe place where they would neither “offend” nor be “offended.” (Ashenburg, p. 244)

Advertising campaigns in the 1930s and 40s promoted deodorant, shampoo, and razors to women, and later sanitary napkins (Ashenburg, p. 5).  A major industry has been built in the twentieth century around suppressing natural body odor and replacing it with something supposedly better.

My own attitude is that one should have to get pretty close to another person in order to smell their body.  Smell is intimate, and one’s personal body odor should be largely private.  If you can smell a person from more than a few feet away (and that includes perfume, or anything), that person is not civilized and is out of place in a modern society.

“the slovenly folk, who have been going on the theory that they can take a bath or leave it, are to be brought to their senses,” (NYT, July 10, 1927.  Ashenburg, p. 255)

“Odors are unnecessary and those that have them are violating rules of courtesy.” (Ashenburg, p. 254; quoting Hadida, 1932, pp. 98-104)

“Smelling someone’s real body or allowing your own body to be smelled has become an intrusion, a breach of a crucial boundary.”  (Ashenburg, p.271)

San Luis Obispo, CA, law bans people from the library for having offensive odor.  This provision was part of a list of disruptive behaviors prohibited from the library.  (Los Angeles Times, March 5, 2005.  Ashenburg, p. 273)

Why not make scentless the modern ideal, since ever greater cleanliness seems to be the American way?  There is a lot to be said for that, and the only argument I would make against it is that people have always smelled, and so we are accustomed to our bodies emitting odors and to perceiving the odors of others.  If we are going to smell, why not smell good rather than offensive?  Scentless in my view is too conservative and carries the war on body odor to an untenable extreme.  The aesthetic I advocate is that body odor should be minimal and not intrusive or attention seeking, pleasing if possible, but at least minimally offensive.

The word ‘perfume’ comes from the Latin per fumum meaning “through smoke.”  (Morris, p. 16)  The earliest perfumes were likely the burning of wood or meat to offer a pleasant savor to the gods.  Burning incense to the gods was a widespread practice in the ancient world. (1 Kings 11:8, Ezekiel 6:13)  The sweet smell of the incense was judged to be pleasing to the gods and the rising smoke and fragrance would carry aloft the prayers of the people and provide a pleasing presentation to the deities.  In the thirtieth chapter of Exodus God commands Aaron to build an altar and burn incense on it.

Of shittim wood shalt thou make it. . . And Aaron shall burn thereon sweet incense every morning: when he dresseth the lamps he shall burn incense upon it.  And when Aaron lighteth the lamps at even, he shall burn incense upon it, a perpetual incense before the Lord throughout your generations.  Exodus 30: 1-8

Of the three gifts that the wise men brought to the baby Jesus, two of them were fragrances.  In a world where obnoxious smells were the rule, pleasing fragrances were valued on a par with gold.

There is archeological evidence of a thriving perfume industry on the island of Cyprus as early as 2000 BC.  Perfumes have been found in Egyptian graves going back to 3000 BC.  (The Scotsman: Scotland on Sunday, September 21, 2014)

A pleasing fragrance, a sweet savor, was thought to be better than the ordinary rancidness of daily life and thus worthy of presentation to the gods.  So also in perfuming the body one gains favor and elevates oneself in the noses of one’s peers and especially in one’s estimation of oneself.  One gains in self confidence and self esteem knowing that one’s fragrance is apt to make one pleasing and attractive to others.  A pleasing fragrance is a sign of cultivation, sophistication, aristocracy.

The European tendency to be more accepting of the stink of everyday life is a cultural difference which I regard as somewhat primitive.  You have to keep in mind that the smells that come off of our bodies are the result of bacteria and fungi inhabiting our skin and orifices and these organisms can be pernicious. They can create infections, irritations, illnesses.  They can cause your teeth to rot and fall out.  The odor that we perceive is only the first indication of their presence in significant numbers and the impact they are beginning to have on our bodies and health.  Body odor tells us that it is time to wash off the bacteria before things get worse.  Modern hygiene has made us healthier and lengthened our lives — not to mention improved the aesthetic quality of our personal interactions.

The modern perfume industry began in the eighteenth century, mainly in France and Germany, with the return of bathing.  As people bathed their bodies they found it pleasant to anoint themselves with fragrant waters and oils.  The spread of the use of fragrance grew in conjunction with the development of porcelain ceramics and glass which were used to make containers for these fragrant concoctions, because they would not react with the fragrant oils and extracts in the perfumes.  (Morris, 1999, pp. 74-82)

This nascent perfume industry, catering as it did to the aristocracy, was nearly obliterated in the French Revolution.  However, Napoleon Bonaparte, who came to power in 1804, was a dandy, who was very conscientious about bathing and hygiene, even on military campaigns, and he revived the perfume industry in France, giving it generous support and encouragement (Morris, 1999, pp. 84-87).  The discovery of chemical solvents in the 1830s that allowed for the extraction of exotic scents from many flowers and plants that had never been possible before, led to an explosion of perfume manufacturing.  Many of the major perfume houses that exist today got their start in the nineteenth century.  It was the growth and rising affluence of the middle class and the increasing attention to bathing and hygiene that fostered this prodigious growth of the perfume industry.

Today the fragrance industry is a multibillion dollar worldwide behemoth that employs sophisticated technology, marketing, and huge budgets for product research and development.  The Perfect Scent by Chandler Burr is an excellent inside look at this modern industry.  I am not going to go into surveying it here.  I think this is long enough already.  But Burr is an excellent, knowledgeable writer whose books are readable and very interesting.

I want to make one more philosophical foray into aesthetics and taste before I leave you to peruse my reviews of individual fragrances.  Ashenburg gives an unwarranted amount of space to Sissel Tolaas, who runs a research lab in Berlin devoted to scent (Ashenburg, 2007, pp. 271-74).  Among other projects, the lab is building an archive of scent which includes over 7000 aromas neatly labeled and catalogued.  Tolaas hopes to develop a vocabulary of fragrance that will allow us to describe and discuss fragrances in words for which for which our current linguistic capability is dearth.  These are laudable projects and I do wish her success in these efforts and I remain interested in her progress.  Where I differ with Tolaas and the slant that Ashenburg gives to her, is her aesthetic.  It is best illustrated by an anecdote that she relates herself:

Once at the Berlin Film Festival I wore a beautiful evening dress and put on a smell which was the absolute contrast — the smell of garbage and the stench of dogshit!  And people were completely confused because the way I looked and the way I smelled had nothing to do with each other.  And I had the most fun time in my life!  In this case the purpose of smell was to say “leave me alone.”

Normally the role of smell in our society is to say “come to me!” but I did the opposite and I succeeded.  Maybe at some point we will have smells for different purposes, the “stay alone” smell, “come halfway” smell, “come close” smell.  What’s wrong with that?!”  ( Tolaas, Huffington Post, September 24, 2013)

What’s wrong with it is that you don’t need smell to communicate those intentions, and Tolass was sending out a very mixed message by her appealing dress on the one hand and her offensive odor on the other.  The point was to create confusion in people and thus draw attention to herself.  She was at an event where everyone would be dressed fashionably and thus dress alone may not have been sufficient to make a distinguishing splash, so she doused herself in stink in order to make herself stand out from the crowd.  A kind of grandstanding with odor and dress.  There is also a hostile, contemptuous element in it.  It’s childish.

My view is that smells are mostly offensive, probably 80 percent, ranging from the mild to the disgusting.  The evolutionary purpose of smell was primarily to warn us of danger and secondarily to help us find something to eat.  In civilized societies the role of smell in meeting these needs has been minimized and thus smell has been freed from its primary function of perceiving hazard to offering the possibility of aesthetic enhancement, in the same way that clothing has gone beyond simply protecting us from the elements to making a personal statement about ourselves in society.  Deliberately wearing a fragrance to make oneself stink in public is either a reflection of low self esteem and the anticipation of rejection, or a childish, sassy provocation.

Luca Turin has a somewhat different sensibility and aesthetic.  But he is French and Italian.  He tells us

France is a country of smells. . . The idea that things should be slightly dirty, overripe, slightly fecal is everywhere in France.  They like rotten cheese and dirty sheets and unwashed women  (Burr, 2003, p. 3-4).

I noticed that in many of the fragrances that Turin favors and praises.  They sort of stink.  He thinks it is sophisticated to like these somewhat offensive smells.  I think it is civilization turned on its head.  One might question whether Turin speaks for the whole kingdom of France, but his comments are echoed by Henry Miller writing in Paris in the 1930s

That’s the first thing that strikes an American woman about Europe — that it’s unsanitary. (Miller, p. 137)

Chandler Burr rightly calls Luca Turin the “Emperor of Scent.”  Turin probably knows as much as anyone alive about scent, its history and the contemporary industry of scent.  In addition he has an extraordinarily discerning and well trained nose for grasping the ingredients and building blocks of a fragrance.  In presenting these fragrance reviews here I don’t claim anywhere near the skill and sophistication that Turin has to offer.  He is the unquestioned master.  His perception of odors is unmatched and his ability to analyze the compositions of perfumes are far more precise than my own.  I am totally untrained in the language of fragrance and the building blocks of modern perfumes.  Everything I have picked up on my own, with gaps and limitations.  The differences I have with Turin are in taste.   What one chooses to wear, in both clothing and in fragrance, has to do with personality and style and the image one wishes to project in the world.  In this we have substantial differences, and this is reflected in our respective evaluations of perfumes.  It is also true that perfumes can smell differently on different person’s bodies.  That might also be a source of difference in some evaluations.  Turin’s Perfume Guide is the standard classic on this subject.  Anyone who is with more than a passing interest in perfumes should have it.  I used it to help select some of the fragrances to sample.  I did not consult it in formulating my evaluations.  My evaluations and comments on the fragrances are my own.

Every fragrance listed here I have used on my body.  Most of the time I bought small samples and wore them for a couple of days.  In many cases one day was enough.  My comments are generally spare, mostly little more than a reaction.  In rare cases I have changed my mind after a second try.  Usually I know right away whether I like something or not.  However, perfumes change on the body after some time wearing them.  Some perfumes might start out good and then slide downhill after a couple of hours.  Less often they will start out somewhat negative and then evolve in a pleasing way later on.  All of the fragrances that I tried are marketed as “Men’s” or “Unisex.”  There are women’s fragrances that I like, but since I haven’t worn them or tested them myself, I didn’t think it was appropriate to include them in this list.

I also tried a number of “essential oils” in an effort to sharpen my powers of discernment of the components of a fragrance.  I don’t know that it helped all that much, but I listed my comments on the essential oils as well.

After some debate I decided to list the fragrances in alphabetical order.  This posed some problems because some fragrances are known by the perfume house that created them, but many are known by their trade names, with the name of the manufacturer being less well known.  I have tried to list them by the manufacturer, but some that are better known by their trade name may be listed that way.  If you are looking for something and you don’t find it by the manufacturer, try looking for it by the commercial trade name.

A key to the entries.  If a fragrance has a + after it, that means I like it.  If you see ++, then it means it is on my shopping list, or I may have bought a bottle of it already.  The vast majority of commercial fragrances I do not like and would not wear.  So these reviews are overwhelmingly negative.

Chandler Burr’s estimation of the typical commercial masculine fragrance is as follows:

The surefire formula for making a bestselling masculine seems simply to be mixing together enough dihydromyrcenol (laundry detergent) with the smell of metal garbage can to choke a horse, then topping that with the scent of cryogenically frozen citrus peel dusted with DDT and a whiff of recycled plastic.  Chrome is fit, at 10 percent dilution, for controlling weeds on your lawn.  Aramis makes a fine garage floor sterilizer.  But following a plan of simply pumping out some metallic doesn’t always work.  All sorts of things that smelled of the effluent of arms manufacturing plants were put on the shelves every year and, for some reason, refused to sell.  (Burr, 2007, p. 151)

I’m not as caustic as that, but I understand where he is coming from.  However, what I do like, I like a lot, and I admire expert perfumers who are able to create interesting, unique fragrances that have a pleasing effect.  I plan to update this list from time to time as I try new samples.

 

 

 

References

 

 

Ashenburg, Katherine (2007)  The Dirt on Clean:  An Unsanitized History.  New York:  North Point Press.

Burr, Chandler (2003)  The Emperor of Scent:  A True Story of Perfume and Obsession.  New York:  Random House.

Burr, Chandler (2007)  The Perfect Scent:  A Year inside the Perfume Industry in Paris and New York.  New York:  Picador/ Henry Holt.

Hadida, Sophie (1932)  Manners for Millions:  A Correct Code for Pleasing Personal Habits for Everyday Men and Women.  New York: Doubleday, Duran & Co.

Miller, Henry (1961)  Tropic of Cancer.  New York:  Grove Press.

Morris, Edwin T.  (1999)  Scents of Time:  Perfume from Ancient Egypt to the 21st Century.  New York, Boston, London:  Metropolitan Museum of Art, Bulfinch Press/Little, Brown & Co.

Turin, Luca and Sanchez, Tania (2009)  Perfumes:  The A-Z Guide.  New York and London:  Penguin Books.

Weatherford, Jack (2004)  Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World.  New York:  Three Rivers Press.

 

 

The Fragrances

 

 

 

A*Men by Thierry Mugler      Smells like the Wysteria incense my dad used to burn.  But also has a strong vanilla fragrance that becomes dominant.  Very durable.  Too sweet and perfumey for me.  Womanish.  A woman could wear this.

 

Agonist  Black Amber           Rather light, grassy, hint of vanilla, some wysteria if applied more heavily, vaguely pleasant, not strong, not durable

 

Agonist  Dark Saphir           Fresh, Soapy, clean, little bit smoky, pleasant, not bad, durable    +     Second time better, more smoky, incense, pungent, good  ++

Agonist Infidels      Smoky, herbal, kind of biting.  Nice.

 

Amouage Ciel Man          Citrus, lime, fresh, clean, something slightly dark, not strong, not durable

 

Amouage Epic        Nothing

 

Amouage Gold      Detergent, stinking, offensive

 

Amouage Honour         Spicy, smoky, fresh, clean  very durable   + +

 

Amouage    Journey Man          smoky, spicy, pungent, clean, rather nice.  Softens later on but still retains its spicy character.  Very durable.  Excellent.   ++

 

Amouage   Jubilation   XXV  Mens        smoky, moderate, durable   + +

 

Amouage Lyric      Detergent, chemicals, durable

 

Amouage Memoir     Fresh & light at first, smoky, can’t make up my mind.  Second try:  Negative.

 

Amouage  Opus VIII               Rancid, watery, rotting vegetables, foul,  not strong, fortunately not durable, threw it out

 

Amouage Puro  Nejma    Fruity, rich, dark, pungent  Durable   Excellent     + +

 

Amouage Silver      Moth balls, offensive, choking

 

Andy Tauer  Lonestar Memories     Stinks  chemicals  detergent  very durable

 

Anise   — Smells like licorice, but better than licorice.  It has a sweetness and a smokiness, rather pungent.  Very pleasant and fresh.  Could wear it alone.  Fairly durable.  I only used a very little bit.

 

07-31-14   Tried a bit of anise w a little bit of lime oil on top.  At first it smelled a little rancid, then got itself under control.  The lime seems to freshen and brighten the anise, but the lime disappears quickly, but then occasionally reappears from time to time.  Anise is much stronger and more durable than the lime.  Good mix.

 

 

Anubis  Papillon Artisan Perfume          Musky, woody, little spicy, fairly strong, not bad, not durable

 

Armani    Acqui di Gio — watery, somewhat offensive, very durable, definitely a no

 

Armani        Light, fresh, little bit spicy, not durable.  So light hardly noticeable.  Don’t really like it.

 

Armani /Prive  Ambre Soie    Light incense, Pleasant,  not long lasting    +

 

Aspen         Very nice.  Fresh, woodsy, clean, slightly bitter, but pleasantly so.  The opposite of sweet powdery, perfumey.  Has a kind of tang, but not citrus.  Very interesting.

 

Bogner Wood Man            Light, pleasant, slightly perfumey.  Not much.

 

Bulgari Pour Homme —  Light, watery, little bit detergent.  Don’t like it.  Very durable.

 

Bulgari Aqua Marine Pour Homme          Clean, fresh, watery.  Not offensive but not compelling either.  Fairly durable.

 

Burberry  Brit — Spicy  >  Old Spice Lite    durable  not bad

 

Burberry London — Grassy, citrus, light OK, but not much

 

Burberry  Touch —  Grassy, pungent, watery.  Don’t care for it.

 

Burberry Weekend            Fresh and clean, little bit grassy, little bit spicy.  Maybe a little bit soapy, but that fades.  Durable.  Rather fresh and pleasant.  Not all that bad.   +

 

By       Dolce Gabana       Sweet, perfumey, light, slightly watery, little bit sickening.  Not distinctive.  Unfortunately rather durable.  Threw it out.

 

Calvin Klein  Obsession —  Spicy > Old Spice but light,  OK usable, but not impressive

 

Canati  — Sweet, musty, pungent > mothballs   don’t like it

 

Calvin by Calvin Klein           Light, fresh, kind of spicy, reminiscent of new carpet.  Durability only moderate

 

Carrot seed — Essential oil.  grassy, waxy, little bit sharp, herbal.  Not strong, not durable.

 

Cuiron Helmut Lang     Nothing.  Couldn’t smell it.  Very indistinct, no character.  Later becomes watery and gains strength.  Very unimpressive.

 

Cedarwood —  Essential oil.  Heavy, musky, woody.  Without the sweetness and freshness of real cedar.  Not very durable.

 

Clove bud —  Essential oil.  Smells just like cloves.  Spicy, pungent.  Lovely.

 

CB I hate Perfumes  Lavender Tea Absolute            Fairly strong  Long lingering   +

 

Compagnia del Indie  Vetyver       light pleasant   not long lasting

 

Carven  Vetiver            Nothing much.  OK.

 

Charvet Cuvee Speciale      Stinks and is durable.  Double negative.

 

Charvet Cuvee Special         Stinks

 

Comme de Garcons Avignon    Incense, Smoky, very strong, pungent,  use sparingly  very durable  gets better  ++   Bought larger sample  Very strong, pungent, very durable, Too much.   Sweet.  Threw it out.

 

Courduroy by Zith        Sweet, perfumy, womanish.  Fairly durable

 

Clive Christen   X for Men      A little too sweet.  Durable

 

Clive Christian No. 1 for him          Grassy, stinky.  Nothing.  Short-lived.

 

Creed Vetyver              Nothing special

 

Creed Green Irish Tweed —  Grassy, Fresh, clean, later spicy.  Durable.  Nice one.  ++

 

Creed Royal Water      Grassy, little bit spicy, very light.  Not durable. Unimpressive

 

D & G Masculine         Spicy, some citrus, rather pungent, little musky,  pleasing, becomes sweeter after a while, somewhat oppressive, quite durable.  I’m giving it a   + but I don’t wear it very much because it’s after effect is so strong and lingering and frankly rubs me the wrong way.  It is much better when you first put it on.  If it would disappear after a couple of hours, I would be much more inclined to wear it.  It makes a good impression, but then hangs around too long.  +

 

Dark Blue by Hugo      Sort of stinks, sweat plus baby powder,  not durable, fortunately

 

Davidoff  Hot Water —   Sweet, sickening, threw it out

 

Davidoff  Cool Water — Spicy, fresh, little bit pungent,  pretty good

 

Davidoff Cool Water    Edt         Very light, fresh, hint of pine, unimpressive

 

Declaration by Cartier         Sweet, syrupy, perfumey, sickening, offensive.  Strong, enduring.  After 3 hours had to wash it off, but it still lingered.

 

Dior Homme         Very light, fresh, little grassy, powdery, womanish, next to nothing, powdery smell becomes stronger.

 

Donna Karan Fuel Original        Not bad, Nothing special

 

Dunhill Black           Little grassy, musky, fresh, light,  not impressive, not durable.

 

English Pear and wild flower — Essential oil.  Strongly soapy, choking,  grows more intense.  Very durable.

 

Egyptian Musk — Essential oil.  Fresh and clean.  Little bit soapy.  Very light.  Hardly smell it.  Emerges later.  Watery, clean.  Somewhat durable, but fades.

 

Escada Pour Homme Light Silver Edition      Clean, fresh, slightly smoky,   Not real strong.  Moderately durable  Pleasant.  +

 

Etro  Messe de Minuit       Smoky, pungent, durable   excellent  + +

 

Exceptional —    Grassy, light, insubstantial.  Not impressed

 

Fennel — Essential oil.  Pungent, sharp, spicy, clean > anise.  Later becomes sort of toasty, but sweet.  Durable.

 

Frank No. 1    Frank Los Angeles         Fresh, clean, herbal, fruit > grape juice? little bit smoky.  Nice.  Not strong.  Not durable.  Unimpressive.

 

Frankincense — Essential oil.  Light, clean, woodsy, not much.  At first I could hardly smell it at all.  After about half an hour a beautiful smoky, wood fragrance emerges.  It is not strong, but it is marvelous.  An exhilarating surprise.

 

French Lavender —  Essential oil.  Fresh, clean, musky, very light at first but grows stronger and lasts all day.  Becomes spicy, little bit smoky.  Very pleasant.

 

Frederic Malle Musc Ravageur edp      Urine plus Vanilla

 

Fueguia 1833   Darwin    Fresh, clean, woodsy > pine,  nice,  good one   fairly durable   ++  I’m going to get this one.  Excellent.

 

Fueguia  1833     Otro Peoma de los Dones   Musky, dusky, rotting leaves, not much

 

Fueguia 1833    Pulperia         Grassy, pungent, sharp, smoky, different, not bad, sort of fresh and clean, interesting, not real durable  +

 

Givenchy Eau de Vetyver        Musty  Durable

 

Grey Flannel    Musky, pungent, little bit grassy, decomposing vegetation, Little bit stinking, little bit shit, musty, Smells like a horse barn, but without the sweetness of hay.  There is a vague medicinal quality, but it is very remote.  Becomes somewhat soapy.  Don’t really like this, but it is wearable.

Gucci Pour Homme  (2003)   Smoky, pungent, strong, but not overwhelming, use sparingly, durable.  Very good one.  Discontinued.  Has become expensive on the secondary market.   ++

Guerlain  Apres L’Ondee   Edt   Very fresh and clean, kind of spicy, earthy.  Little bit sweet.  Maybe a hint of citrus.  Well balanced.  Sort of womanish.  The sweetness seems to grow, but does not become too much.  The earthiness holds it in check.  I wouldn’t buy it, but it is very pleasant.  Fairly durable.  Luca Turin likes this one.  +

 

Guerlain  Bois  D’Armenie           Vanilla  Pleasant, sweet

 

Guerlain  Derby            Grassy, fresh, very light, hint of pine, not much

 

Guerlain  Jicky   EDP        Grassy, little bit pine, clean, light, unimpressive

 

Guerlain  Mitsouko   EDP       Musky >  Patchouli  Fresh, not strong, not impressive

 

Guerlain  Mitsouko   Edt        Little bit Pine, Little bit Musky, little bit horseshit, not real strong, not to my taste

 

Geurlain Sous le Vent        Stinks

 

Guerlain Vetyver          Stinks

 

 

Halston Z12  New bottle 08-14    Little grassy, little musky, little rough like sandpaper, not sweet, powdery, flowery, or perfumey at all.  Totally unwomanish.  Not real strong.  There’s a freshness to it.  Clean smelling but not soapy.  As it goes on becomes stronger and more pungent.  The freshness and lightness disappears.  I like it rather less after an hour or so.  Becomes detergent-like.  Astringent.   Very durable and exceedingly strong.  I don’t like this.  I think I am going to throw it out.

 

Helmut Lang Cuiron       Almost nonexistent.  Very light.  Pleasant.  Practically nothing.

 

Hermessence Poivre Samarchande    Nothing

 

Hermessence Vetiver Tonka    Light grassy, fresh, not durable

 

Histoires Parfums  1740     Woodsy, herbal, rotting vegetation, strong, not durable

 

Histoires Parfums 1899      Little spicy, maybe citrus, little musky,  not strong. Later spicy vanilla.  Pleasant.  Just a whisper.  Not strong, but has some durability.

 

Histoires Parfums  Vidi          Watery, soapy, little herbal, light.  Herbal grows stronger and later dominates.  Little bit spicy or smoky.  Durable.  Interesting mix, but too soapy for me.

 

Hyssop — Essential oil.  Turpentine, Eucalyptus, pungent.  Later softens, less astringent, vaguely sweet.  Rather nice.

 

Intoxicated  Killian   Little spicy, maple syrup, pancakes, not strong, not durable

 

Jean Paul Gautier Le Male —  Vanilla, womanish  don’t like it

 

Jo Malone Ambr & Lavender     Nothing special

 

Jo Malone  Lime Basil & Mandarin   Fruity, lime, clean, little bit sweet, on the light side, not impressed

 

Juniper — Essential oil.  Woodsy, musky, fresh, reminiscent of pine, but the muskiness and woodsiness give it a different character

 

Kinski  Eau de Toilette      chemicals, sweat, mildly offensive, vaguely fresh  durable

 

Kinski       Eau de Toilette            grassy, soapy, musky, hint of pine, rather pungent, not offensive, but not to my taste, after a while somewhat fresh, watery, not bad as a change of pace, fairly durable   Second try.  Do not like this.  Rancid.  Grassy.  Offensive.

 

Knize Ten    Grassy, little bit shit, or decomposing vegetation.  Pungent shit smell grows stronger with time.  Fortunately not real durable.

 

L’Art de la Guerre  Jovoy   Clean, minty, perhaps a little musky, not strong, not durable.  Not much.

 

Lanvin  Vetyver    Light, pleasant

 

Le Labo   Santl 33        Little grassy, little watery, little musky, fresh, not strong, not durable

 

L’occitane Vetyver      Light, almost nonexistent

 

Lubin Idole Edt         Nothing

 

Lubin   Korrigan       Musky, incense, rotting leaves, not strong, becomes softer, sweet, finally kind of powdery, womanish, durable.

 

MEMO    Quartieer Latin      Little bit sweet, flowery, musky, not strong.

 

MDCI Ambre Topkapi      Light  Citrus, Fresh  Not much

 

Mohave Ghost   Byredo Parfums    Herbal, little watery, little musky, light, not distinctive

 

Montale Dark Aoud          chemicals, detergent, but clean smelling   durable

 

Moroccan Myrrh — Essential oil.  Sweet, spicy, extremely light.  Can hardly smell it.  Later it emerges.  Sweet.  Maybe a little herbal.  Pleasant.   Fairly durable.

 

Narciso Rodriguez Musc for Him    Oily, grassy,  not much

 

Oakmoss — Essential oil. Musky, decaying vegetation, leaves, little bit watery.  Very light at first.  Pungent.  Does not emerge.  Not durable.  Very minimal.

 

Odin    10  Roam     Vanilla, sweet, musky, perfumey, not strong, not durable

 

Odin Tanoke         Grassy, charcoal, pungent  +

 

Old Spice    Spicy, somewhat smoky, subdued sweetness which emerges later on, pungent, clean and fresh, fairly durable.  One of my all time favorites.  Cheap, but very distinctive.  ++

 

Oregano — Essential oil.  smells like oregano, musty, heavy.  Not real durable.  Unimpressive.

 

Oriental Kush —  Essential oil.  Heavy, flowery, incense, sweet, kind of womanish.

 

Ormonde  Jayne Isfarkand   Very light, non existent

 

Oud  — Essential oil. Musky, dusky, little bit watery.  Not real strong.  Increases somewhat with time and becomes perhaps a little more pleasant.  Woody.

 

Parfum d’Empire Ambre Russe        Smoky, pungent, very durable   Excellent  + +

 

Parfum d’Empire    Fougere Bengale        Syrupy, little but smoky, not impressed

 

Paris LA   Lab on Fire       Citrus, lime, fresh, bright, little watery, maybe mint.  Becomes somewhat more watery, and sweeter, mild powder, but retains the citrus element.  Not particularly durable.  Nice but weak.

 

Pi by Givenchy      Very sweet, womanish, cheap, tacky, tasteless woman, vanilla.  Over much.  Can’t stand it.  Threw it out.

 

Prada Pour Homme            Spicy, little bit sweet, reminiscent of baby powder, but not offensive, very light, not durable, unimpressive

 

Profumum Eccelso          Light Pleasant  not durable or distinctive

 

Profumium Fumidus         Smells like rotting potato skins, then later turns smoky.  Not half bad.  Very durable.

 

Profumum  Olibdanum       Grassy  Musky  mildly offensive

 

Puig  Vetyver               Nothing  Unimpressive

 

Ramon  Monegal    Agar  Musk          fresh, light, grassy, watery, pleasant, not strong, very durable, don’t like it

 

Robert Piguet  Vintage Bandit  Edt   Grassy, motor oil, little bit shit, mildly offensive, not strong, not durable.

 

Rosemary — Essential oil.  Pungent > Turpentine or Eucalyptus, can feel in sinuses.  Not durable.  Not strong.

 

Rosewood — Essential oil.  At first nothing.  Couldn’t smell it.  Applied a moderate amount.  Once it is on the skin the scent begins to emerge.  A little bit pine, a little bit woody.  Fresh and clean.  Not real strong.  Seems to develop after a while.  Slight sweet smell emerges freshened by the woodiness.  Hint of anise could be left over from yesterday although I washed my neck well this morning.  Overall, nice, subtle.  Not a strong impact.

 

Salvatore Ferragamo Subtil Pour Homme        Fresh, clean, light, a little grassy.  Not durable.  Nothing special.

 

Salvador Dali  Purple Light         Mothballs, disinfectant.   Fairly durable.

 

Santal Carmin   Atelier Cologne     Smoky, incense, wysteria, very light at first.  Grows stronger and becomes somewhat powdery.  Pleasant, but too sweet and womanish for me.

 

Sassafras —  Essential oil.  When I was a kid, sometimes when we visited my cousin we would walk up on the wooded hill behind the town where he lived.  We would pull up sassafras saplings and cut the roots off them and bring them home to boil and make tea.  The tea was awful.  But the smell of the sassafras roots was wonderful.  It was a sweet, pungent, clean, woody fragrance.  This oil is nothing like that. It is like someone took that sassafras fragrance and painted over it with a translucent gray paint.  It is very muted and subdued compared to real sassafras.  It is reminiscent of pine and shoe leather.  It is clean, but not very strong, not real durable, and nothing like real sassafras which is exhilarating.

 

Serge Lutens    Ambre Sultan          Smoky,  incense, vanilla, little bit pungent, kind of sweet, womanish, at first I liked it but turned against it.  Arabie is better

 

Serge Lutens   Arabie     Strong, pungent, spicy, hint maple syrup, hint of leaves, pretty good.  Fairly durable +

 

08-08-14  A dark, rich, pungent fragrance.  Strong tea.  Maybe Anise covered w maple syrup or marmalade, a hint of apricot or pomegranate, something vaguely fruity, but way in the background, not pronounced.  Compelling.  Interesting.  Wonderful.  ++   A couple of websites that had this for sale called it “Arabie for Women.”  It does not say “for women” on the box it came in or on the label on the bottle.  I regard it as a masculine fragrance because of its depth, complexity, and richness, although I suppose a woman could wear it.  It would be sexy and alluring on a woman.

 

06-01-15    It has become one of my favorites.

 

Serge Lutens   Chergui    Musky, herbal, not strong, quickly gives way to soft powder.  Not durable.  Womanish.

 

Serge Lutens  De Profundis      Musty grassy repugnant

 

Serge Lutens    Enscense et Lavande      Light, fresh, clean.  Turns smoky.  Not very durable  +

 

Serge Lutens Fourreau Noir        Smoky, rather strong,  very durable  compliment from a girl   ++

 

Serge Lutens  Gris Clair        Smoky quality that grows   +

Sergei Lutens Muscs Kublai Khan        Musky like dust not durable

 

Serpentine   Comme des Garcons       Medicinal, alcohol, little grassy, not much.

 

Sexiest Scent on the Planet Ever    Tuesdays      Musky, spicy, cloves, hint of mint.  Later on becomes smoky, clove scent grows, > incense.  Fairly durable.  I wouldn’t call this sexual but it is very good.  ++

 

Simply Belle (free sample)   Fresh, clean, watery, hint of smoke, little bit soapy.  Not bad.  I usually don’t like this kind of a fragrance, but I don’t mind this.  Soapiness increases as we go along — a negative.  Fairly durable.  +

 

S-Perfumes   S-ex      Fresh, clean, musky, woodsy, rather light,  vague hint of sweetness or flowers, hint of something herbal: maybe coriander, nutmeg, patchouli?   Grows stronger, rather spicy, interesting. +

 

Tauer  L’air du desert Moroccan            Pungent, not bad

 

Terre D’Hermes        Grassy, fresh, very light.  You have to use a goodly amount.  It does linger, becomes somewhat pungent.  Not half bad.

Tom Ford  Bois Morcaine       Light, grassy not much

 

Tom Ford Grey Vetiver — Grassy, light, not much, hardly noticeable

 

Tom Ford   Patchouli Absolu    Pungent, smoky, woodsy, strong, very nice, durable.  ++

 

Tom Ford   Private Blend Tobacco Vanilla         Strong vanilla odor  sweet  womanish    fairly durable

 

True Lavender —  Essential oil.  Clean, herbal, little medicinal, somewhat pungent.  Evolves into smooth, polished blend.  Spicy, slightly sweet.  Very nice.

 

Une Nuit Magnetique  Different Company      Flowery plus rotting vegetation.  Sweet shit.  Interesting mix.  The sweetness is not overly so and held in check by the earthiness.  The whole thing is not very strong.  Not durable.  Rather weak.

 

Une Rose de Kandahar  Tauer          Floral, little bit smoky, little bit sweet.  Nice  Not strong. Turns powdery, but still retains some smokiness.  Not durable.

 

White Amber — Essential oil.  Practically nothing.  Musky, little watery.  Can hardly smell it.  Becomes more decisively watery.  Unimpressive.  Not durable.

 

Wit   Parfums Delrae            Clean, somewhat choking,  > moth balls, detergent, musky.  softens later, becomes less astringent, somewhat powdery.  Not terribly appealing, very durable.  Lasts all day.

 

Versace Blue Jeans   Very light, little bit sweet, little bit powdery,  little bit musky, not impressed.  Later, increasingly sweet and powdery.  Womanish.  Dislike.  Moderately durable     Threw it out.

 

Yves Saint Laurent Body Kouros      Smoky, but a little too sweet,  durable

 

Yves Saint Laurent La Nuit de la Homme — Smoky, spicy, rather light, not impressive

About Elly — Movie Review

By Joe Cillo

About Elly

Directed by Asghar Farhadi

This is a contrived, manipulative, ridiculous piece of melodramatic fluff that provides a very uncomplimentary depiction of Iranian culture.  If you think American culture is bad — and I do — this is much worse.  No wonder a simple weekend outing turns into a grotesque nightmare.  These people are intolerable.  They can’t do anything right.  Everything they do is stupid from beginning to end.  Part of the problem is that the filmmaker seems to be improvising the story line as he goes along.  He’s got a boring subject with boring people and he keeps looking for ways to jazz it up and keep the audience from falling asleep or getting up and leaving.  Nothing is convincing, though, and the outcome does not make sense and is so unconvincing that I would argue that Elly is not really dead and the idiot that looked at her body in the morgue misidentified her.

The film is Iranian.  It is in Persian with subtitles.  One of the features of Iranian culture that I discerned from this film is that it is a group culture, where one’s participation in the group is more important than one’s individuality.  It is a busybody culture where the group knows everyone’s personal business and is very much involved in regulating and directing the personal life of each member.  I wouldn’t be able to stand it, and in fact, it is exactly that feature of this group culture that gives rise to all the conflicts that make up the substance of the film, if you want to call it that.

Another difficulty, from a western observer’s point of view, is that this group culture makes it difficult to get to know the members of the group as individuals.  You come away from this film not really knowing who the characters are, with one exception that I will mention later.  Everything is done in a group and even conversations are group conversations.  The conversation goes on with all members of the group participating at once.  So when you read the subtitles, it is hard to connect the subtitles to the particular individuals making the utterances, because they are coming so fast and almost at once.  As the film goes on, individual personalities begin to emerge, but “character” in the usual sense that we understand in a western film is decidedly downplayed.

The subtitles must have been done by someone who is not a native speaker of English.  What gives this away is a discussion they had about someone “ululating” during some horseplay the night before.  How many Americans know what “ululating” is?  It suggests that somebody found the word in the dictionary, but didn’t really understand how (rarely) it is used.

The film is marred by a number of arbitrary turns whose only purpose seems to be to create melodrama, like leaving young children unattended on a hazardous beach when there are about eight adults present who could watch them.  This is what I mean about these people being dumb.  They’re careless, shortsighted and irresponsible — not to mention manipulative and deceitful.  They have all kinds of hang-ups about women and personal relationships.  They get into these huge squabbles over small interpersonal trifles.  It’s very tiresome.  They’re uncivilized.  If you want to watch a bunch of morons argue and bicker and fight amongst themselves about a bunch of nothing, then this is the movie for you.

There is one beautiful woman who has potential as an actress in this film.  Golshifteh Farahani who played Sepideh in the film is a gorgeous woman with beautiful captivating eyes.  It is unfortunate that she had to play this badly written role in this lousy movie, but she has the magnetism and the physical presence as well as the skill to be a heavyweight in a really good film.  But she is not enough to make this film worth sitting through.  I hope she will get a better chance in something else.

 

“The Taming of the Shrew” – Theater of Others

By Joe Cillo

Presented by Theater of Others.

Director Glenn Havlan’s “Taming of the Shrew” is not your usual “Taming.”  Havlan has created a most outrageous, boistrous, raucous  version of Shakespeare’s comedy through costuming and staging.  He has rearranged the auditorium at the Kelly Cullen Community Auditorium on Golden Gate Avenue in San Francisco to accommodate his free-wheeling, in your face (literally) cast of fifteen.  The audience sits on folding chairs, angled off to the side on the floor where most of the action takes place, while in the Induction (Scene I), the tinker Christopher Sly (Mason Waller) and his “lady” are ensconced on a chaise lounge on the stage.  The Players below  are welcomed by the chiseled,  stentorian-toned, Lord of the Household (Greg Gutting); his huntsmen played by Richard Gutierrez and Paul Seliga, and his Page, Zach Simon, who also plays Sly’s “lady.”  Thus the play begins.

Maria Graham offered costume assistance, working with the actors to come up with inventive attire, from rag-tag to formal with matronly and cocktail somewhere in between.  What is a Shakespeare’s comedy without switching or mistaking identities, gender confusion, and a long lost heir suddenly being revealed.  Basically Baptista (Irving Schulman), a gentleman of Padua, must marry off his eldest daughter, Katherine,  before the younger, Bianca (a sweet, comely Alaish Wren).   No one wants to marry headstrong, feisty Katherine (aptly played by Nitika Nadgar).  Outstanding suitors for Bianca are Hortensio. who is to prove his worth in the arts but has no talent.  And  Gremio- the three “Rs”; and he woos her in Latin.

Petrucio, a gentleman of Verona, is Katherine’s suitor, the only man willing to take her on.   Petrucio is played by a very physical Dan Mack, whose red hair signals a well-suited temperament for the role. He appears mostly in formal dress, yet his wedding outfit comes as a delightful shock and surprise.  Other “players” Are Lucentio (Edwin Jacobs), a Gentleman of Pisa, his servent, Tranio (Lijesh Krishnan); Biondella, Lucentio’s dithering secretary (an understated and subtly comic Kristin Anundsen).

As in Shakespeare’s time, the audience becomes part of the play.  Half the fun is interacting with the actors when they purposely break the “fourth wall” to make you part of their act.

Final performances: Fri May 29; Sat, May 30, 8PM; Sun May 31, 2PM $10.00 or Pay what you will.

Kelly Cullen Community Auditorium

220 Golden Gate Auditorium,SF, CA

38 Geary, BART, 19 Polk.

 

This Covered Wagon Needs a Tow Truck

By Joe Cillo

This Covered Wagon Needs a Tow Truck

How does the old-fashioned pioneer spirit handle modern problems? What does it do about bankruptcy, wrecked cars, obstinate offspring? The character of Mom in Marin Theatre Company’s “The Way West,” manages them by denying everything, telling stories or singing. These strategies have always worked for her, but Mom may have come to the end of the trail this time.

“The Way West” forecasts its journey with a wonderful set by Geoffrey M. Curley, a tilted construction of disordered tables and overstuffed furniture, ribbed over with arches that evoke the interior of a covered wagon. In it, Mom quarrels with her two daughters, Manda, the high achiever from Chicago, and Meesh, the loser who stayed home. Both of them often agree that they don’t know what Mom’s talking about.

Still, Manda’s going to help Mom complete the paperwork for bankruptcy, a procedure this lady sees as her last chance, and Manda’s  old boyfriend, Luis, is available to help with the legalities.

There will be a lot of them. Has Mom really charged $3500 to an Elizabeth Arden account? Is it possible she’s paid $500 for a tiny bottle of “magic water” that her friend Tress is selling to her spa customers?  Did Mom actually crash Meesh’s car in the garage? She doesn’t think so. “Prairie wisdom,” she says, “is not to talk about it.” And then Manda is downsized. The wheels have, as the title card says, come off this covered wagon.

Playwright Mona Mansour sees her own American mother as the inspiration for Mom and for the “theatrical moments” in the play. These are the stories Mom tells — real whoppers — that are supposed to illustrate to the girls how fortunate they are not to be dying along the route, starving and confronting ravening coyotes. She also tosses musical instruments at them like a cheerleader, rallying songs that urge “Roll, roll, roll!” or “Fight! Fight! Fight!”  And even though this family has come to a dead stop somewhere around Stockton or Modesto, Mom’s core belief is, “The next place will be better.”

The songs are not old campfire favorites, like “Home on the Range.” They’re originals, composed by Megan Pearl Smith and Sam Misner. During the singing, Director Hayley Finn has the cast members sing not to each other, but to the audience; the same occurs with Mom’s stories. It’s unusual direction and seems to freeze any forward action.

Anne Darragh presents a warm-hearted, gullible Mom, the object of equal parts affection and exasperation. Marin Theatre Company newcomer Rosie Hallett plays daughter Meesh, who’s stayed at home much too long. Kathryn Zdan — as good a musician as she is an actress — has the part of Manda, the one who almost got away by going east.

Stacy Ross, MTC regular, here has a small, but effective role as Tress, the spa owner who has come to believe her own sales pitches. And Hugo E. Carbajal, another newcomer, carries two entirely different parts as boyfriend/legal advisor Luis and as the no-pay-no pizza delivery guy.

“The Way West” has a short run of only twenty-nine shows. It will close on Mother’s Day, May 10. Tuesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday performances are at 8p.m., Wednesdays are at 7:30 and Sundays are at 7p.m. Matinees are every Sunday at 2p.m., also Thursday, April 30 at 1p.m. and May 9 at 2p.m.

Ticket prices range from $20 to $53, and discounts are available for teens, seniors, military personnel and their families. (Bring ID.)

For reservations or more information, call the Box Office, (415) 388-5208 or see boxoffice@marintheatre.org.

Deep Web — Film Review

By Joe Cillo

Deep Web

Directed by Alex Winter

 

 

This is a partisan, advocacy film that champions the legal cause of Ross Ulbricht, who was convicted of heading the website Silk Road, which was the E-bay or Amazon of every imaginable illegal drug on the internet.  I was rather dissatisfied with the film from beginning to end.  The film is naive and hypocritical and its audience is basically Silicon Valley tech nerds and people who want to buy and sell illegal drugs on the internet.

I have been cynical about the so-called “War on Drugs” since it was declared by Nixon in 1971 and amplified by Reagan in the 1980s.  The film is not about the longstanding folly of the misguided Drug War.  It is narrowly focused on the case of Ross Ulbricht, who in my view is simply another casualty of this poorly conceived governmental policy.  Ulbricht and his collaborators tried to set up a website that could be used anonymously to traffic in illegal drugs.  Well, the government found out about it, hatched an undercover operation, and brought it down and arrested Ulbricht.  It is probably true that the government used illegal means in its assault on the Silk Road.  It is probably true that Ross Ulbricht’s trial was not fair, that the government fabricated evidence, trumped up false charges, tried to smear him in the media and so bias the trial against him.  But this is standard procedure in these drug cases.  The filmmakers are shocked and appalled that the government would behave this way.  But this has been going on for decades in this country and there are thousands, perhaps more than a million people in jail in this country who were put there the same way.  Why do they think there have been riots recently in Ferguson, Missouri and Baltimore?  What do they think of all the unrest all across the country about police heavy handedness and brutality?

I have never regarded anything that is done or communicated over the internet as private:  e-mail, “chat,” business transactions, anything bought or sold, anything looked at, shopped for, searched for, read, photographs, pornography, anything.  My attitude is that there is no such thing as anonymity or privacy on the internet.  So my expectations are extremely low.  Everything can be recorded, everything can be saved, everything can be traced.  Nothing is secret.  Don’t even think about it.

The people who invented the Silk Road and other similar sites, as well as the filmmakers, don’t believe this.  They think that secrecy on the internet is possible, that anonymity is possible, that it can be mechanically constructed and preserved indefinitely.  But the case of Ross Ulbricht demonstrates that a determined adversary can thwart such illusions.  It is a chess game that can probably go on forever.  But it does not really interest me.  If you really want secrecy and privacy, keep it off your computer and pay in cash.  It is very easy, and very old fashioned.

Ross Ulbricht, the filmmakers, and the intended audience are mostly white, upper middle class younger people who grew up in a comfortable bubble playing video games and never really knew what was going on around them.  Suddenly they are waking up to find that they can’t freely buy marijuana and other drugs that they want.  But the United States has been moving toward a fascistic, authoritarian governmental system for at least fifty years.  It is a very steady progression that can be seen and measured by anyone who cares to look carefully.  Nixon was forced to resign from the presidency for ordering a burglary into the offices of his political rivals.  At the time that was considered a great vindication of the justice and righteousness of the American system.  Today Obama orders extrajudicial murders all around the world, even of American citizens, and no one bats an eye.  It’s just another day in the news.

In 1970 there were less than 200,000 people in prison in the United States.1   Now (2007), according to the Pew Research Center, there are 2.3 million incarcerated, and if you count all the people on parole and probation it comes to 7.3 million.2  Do the filmmakers care about all of those people?  No.  They care about Ross Ulbricht because he is one of their own.  He is white, upper middle class, and a techie.  But the film is also naive about Ross Ulbricht.  They paint him as a kind of libertarian idealist, who set up this website where people could buy and sell illegal drugs for the good of humanity.  They give an inordinate amount of time to Ross Ulbricht’s mother and father, who are squarely in his camp.  What they did not do was follow the money.  How much money did Ross Ulbricht make running the Silk Road, and where is it?  They never bothered to ask themselves that question.

I wish the film had been a more comprehensive exposition of the so called “Deep Web,” websites that are not readily accessible with the usual browsers and require special anonymizing software to gain access.  I have no knowledge of this aspect of the internet and would be curious to see how it works and see a broad overview of the kinds of communications and transactions that are carried on within it and who uses it.  But this film was not educational, although it did lament that the vast majority of computer and internet users have no understanding of the deep web and how to use and access it.  But the film did nothing to dispel that ignorance and incapacity.  It actually made it seem all the more remote and inaccessible for the average computer user.

This film is very insular.  It is for tech insiders, not a general audience.  It champions the cause of a rather dubious individual engaged in flagrantly illegal activities.  It is mostly oblivious to social and political trends that have been going on in the United States for a very long time.  It represents a kind of awakening for people who have been asleep and who are suddenly realizing to their shock and horror that the world they live in is nothing like the world of their dreams.  I was not impressed with it at all.

We have a government that has kept people in Guantanamo prison for over a decade without charges, without a judicial hearing of any kind, contrary to the Geneva conventions to which it is a signatory, and contrary to our own constitution, and legal tradition going back to the Magna Carta.  It kidnaps people off the street, renditions them to foreign countries where they are held anonymously in secret prisons and tortured.  And you expect this government to respect your privacy?  Who do you think you are kidding?  Our government wants secrecy for itself, but not for you.  They would love to get their talons into Edward Snowden and Julian Assange, just like they did to Chelsea Manning.  They can come after you any time they want for any reason or no reason.  All citizens and non citizens are vulnerable in a society where the government does not abide by its own laws, does not respect its own constitution, and allows the executive and the police to rule by decree.  This is the consistent trend in the United States over a very long period of time.  I have watched this progression over the course of my life time.  Things are not getting better.  They are getting worse.  And I don’t think this small group of bold, tech savvy hackers is going to change that long term trend.  The forces behind it are powerful and deeply entrenched. The monster is more likely to do itself in before they will.  Seen at the San Francisco International Film Festival, May 4, 2015.

 

 

Notes

 

1.  Unlocking America:  Why and How to Reduce American’s Prison Population.  JFA Associates, November 2007.

2.   Pew Center on the States, One in 31: The Long Reach of American Corrections. Washington, DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts, March 2009

 

Love and Mercy — Film Review

By Joe Cillo

Love and Mercy

Directed by Bill Pohlad

 

 

 

This is a superb rendering of the life and music of Brian Wilson, the creative force behind the Beach Boys of the 1960s and 70s.  It is a fascinating, complex story — and distinctly incomplete.  When they introduced the film at the San Francisco International Film Festival, they mentioned that Brian Wilson had seen the film and pronounced it an accurate depiction of his life.

Brian Wilson struggled with severe mental illness.  He was certainly psychotic at times in his life, although his psychologist’s (Eugene Landy) diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia was later repudiated by doctors at UCLA.  It is not so important for our purposes to try to pin down an accurate psychiatric diagnosis, but Brian Wilson has presented a number of psychotic symptoms in his adult  life.  He heard voices, had delusions, extreme anxieties, he has been extremely withdrawn for long periods of time, at one point spending up to three years in bed.  He drank a lot, abused many drugs, overate, became obese, engaged in many forms of self destructive behavior.  Nearly died.  But he was lucky.  At crucial points in his life he was able to find people who pulled him back from the brink.  One of them was Eugene Landy, a psychologist who was nearly as crazy as he was.  Landy was controlling, manipulative, and corrupt, but his overbearing style might have been just what a man who was completely out of control needed, at least for a while.  However, Landy’s “treatment” — which amounted to taking over Brian Wilson’s life and overdoping him with a plethora of drugs — might have killed him if he hadn’t been rescued by the woman who became his second wife, Melinda Ledbetter (Elizabeth Banks).

The film is divided into two parallel stories.  One of them is this saga of Melinda liberating Brian from Eugene Landy.  The other is the struggles and tensions of the Beach Boys at the height of their fame and Brian’s creative output, concentrating on the character of Brian Wilson.  The film is skillfully put together and these two parallel narratives work well without getting in each other’s way.  Elizabeth Banks, is beautiful, sensitive, and perfectly suited to her portrayal of Melinda Ledbetter.  Her beauty and personal magnetism give this film much of its strength.  I wouldn’t say that she takes over the film, but she is a very strong, dominating presence.  You can’t help but be captivated by her.  The film does what it does expertly and effectively, but at the same time it awakens further interest in this extraordinarily complex individual, the incredible struggles of his life, and the fabulous music he was able to produce in the midst of it all.  Seen at the San Francisco International Film Festival May 4, 2015.

Salt of the Earth — Film Review

By Joe Cillo

Salt of the Earth

Directed by Wim Wenders and Juliano Ribeiro Salgado

 

 

This documents the life and work of Brazilian photographer Sebastião Salgado.  Salgado was one of my own photography teacher’s favorites and I went to see an early exhibit of his in San Francisco, probably around 1990, of South American Indians.  I remember being impressed by the quality of his prints and his compositions.  This film confirmed the correctness of that early impression and showed how much Salgado has developed in the intervening years to the point where I would call him one of the greatest photographers of all time.  He belongs in the company of Adams, Weston, Steichen, Steiglitz, Cartier-Bresson, Evans, Frank, Strand, Maier, and Mapplethorpe — although Mapplethorpe was mostly a studio photographer, he had the same eye for quality, composition, and human sensitivity.  Salgado is the very top level of photography.  Whether he is photographing landscapes, portraits, refugee camps, dead bodies, burning oil wells, portraits, or his wife, he is always an artist.  He is always aware of composing the image for the maximum aesthetic power and emotive effect.  His mastery of light and how to use light in a photographic composition is equal to or beyond anyone’s.  The film did not say whether he makes his own prints, but I was able to find out from an excellent interview by photographer Anthony Friedkin with Salgado’s gallery dealer Peter Fetterman, that Salgado works with several printers, at least in his later years, and he is very hands on in supervising them, going over contact sheets himself with a loupe, and directing the darkroom work in creating the prints.  The interview with Peter Fetterman is lengthy and excellent and I highly recommend it.1

Salgado went through an interesting evolution in his work and within himself that the film presents to great effect.  In his early years he documented the plight of the poor and the downtrodden.  He photographed native peoples, workers, refugees.  He traveled to war zones, famines, refugee camps, burning oil wells in Kuwait, Africa, Rwanda.  He was interested in destruction, genocide, starvation, human brutality, indifference, and suffering.  After decades of immersing himself in the abyss of human cruelty and suffering he came to the conclusion that “we are a terrible species.”  The most destructive and pathological that evolution has produced.  The darkness within human capability is unfathomable and horrifying.

And then there was a change, a turnaround.  Since about 2004 he has been documenting the beauty and renewal of the earth.  He discovered that there is as much going on in the world that is good as there is evil.  And so his recent work, called Genesis, is a compendium of magnificent landscapes from around the world, especially Siberia, Antarctica, the Galapagos Islands, and Africa, coupled with the human interest photos of which he is a master.  This inner transformation, from being preoccupied with destruction and brutality to growth and renewal, expressed outwardly in his photographic work, is one of the most interesting aspects of the film and of Salgado’s life.

In a world where everyone is a photographer and more pictures are being taken of everything than can ever be imagined or ingested, Salgado stands out as one at the very pinnacle of quality and substance.  This film is a beautifully made presentation of his life and work and I wholeheartedly recommended it with high accolades.

 

 

1.  Interview with Peter Fetterman by Anthony Friedkin.  September 13, 2013.  http://www.samys.com/blog?action=viewBlog&blogID=-103189848642139966&dest=/pg/jsp/community/printblog.jsp

Was Brahms Really a Misogynist?

By Joe Cillo

Was Brahms Really a Misogynist?

 

 

 

This first began as a review of Bob Greenberg’s video presentation Brahms, The Ladies, and the Trick Rocking Chair (2015a) in his Scandalous Overtures series, but I realized that I needed to go beyond Greenberg’s presentation, because he is relying on well known biographical sources that are taken to be authoritative, but which are biased, misinformed, and seriously misrepresent Brahms, his life, and his attitude toward women.

Greenberg’s presentation on Brahms sex life and his attitude toward women amounts to a moralizing tirade that is offensive for its sanctimonious presumptuousness, its patronizing condescension, and its utter ignorance of the evolution in sexual culture from the nineteenth century to our own time.  He reminded me of one of those television evangelists championing marriage, monogamy and sexual asceticism.  The lesson suggested by Greenberg’s talk is: “Thank God we live in a time when people are so much better than they were in Brahms’ time, and, my haven’t we improved our sexual culture since way back when!”  But it is all nonsense.

First of all he declares that Brahms was a “misogynist.”  This is a key point that echoes Swafford’s (1997) biography.

As he approached puberty, Brahms was steeped in an atmosphere where the deepest intimacies between men and women were a matter of ceaseless and shameful transaction.  That sense of human relations haunted him for life.  He felt intimacy as a threat, female sexuality as a threat.  To preserve yourself, look away, get away! Even before puberty his relations with women were subverted: “You expect me to honor them as you do!”  All his life Brahms would sustain a taste for whores and a deep-lying misogyny.” (Swafford, 1997, p. 30)

‘Misogyny’ is a term Swafford likes to use in his book and Greenberg has accepted it without thinking too much about it.  You can see from this quote that Swafford has a romanticized, elevated, very modern middle class conception of sex that has no understanding of the coarseness and roughness of a low class waterfront brothel.  Some people find the association between a composer of Brahms’ stature and the sordid, seedy, brothels where Brahms came of age in his preteens so repugnant that they try to deny that it even happened [See Styra Avins (1997), p.3; Hofmann (1986)].  Swafford (2001) does a very convincing job of dispelling this lame attempt at revisionist history and I am not going to rehash it.  Greenberg accepts Swafford  and the traditional view that Brahms came of age and performed on the piano in these rough waterfront brothels in Hamburg.  There seems to be plenty of good evidence that this was indeed the case, and I don’t feel a need to take up this epistemological aspect of the matter.

What I object to is Greenberg’s and Swafford’s (and Schauffler’s) claim that this background in Brahms early life: being introduced to sex in a brothel at an early age, was abusive, led to lifelong misogyny, ruined his relationships with women, and was the reason Brahms never married.  These claims are totally false and there is plenty of evidence to refute them.  Greenberg presents much of it himself.  Brahms sex education in the brothels of Hamburg undoubtedly influenced his future sex life, his preference for whores, and did present an alternative sexual adjustment to modern middle class monogamous marriage, which became his established lifestyle.  That is not necessarily a bad thing, and it certainly does not amount to misogyny by any stretch of the imagination.

Schauffler offers this amateurish and somewhat fantastical analysis.

Let us briefly summarize:  Brahms’ early environment and life caused a psychopathic condition which probably made him impotent to all but women of a low class.  This probably defeated his projects for marriage with one respectable woman after another.  He explained these defeats by rationalization, salved his wounded pride with the healing balsam of wit, and grew expert in evading the embarrassing advances of his lady admirers.  (Schauffler, 1972, p. 283)

Greenberg follows Schauffler and Swafford in asserting that Brahms early experiences in the Hamburg brothels “Twisted his sexual psyche for the rest of his life.”  “Messed him up for life.” “Screwed up his attitude toward women for the rest of his life.” (Greenberg 2015a&b)  But Greenberg’s own presentation of Brahms relationship with Clara Schumann in this same video series (Greenberg, 2015b) provides a stark refutation of all of that hyperbolic nonsense.  Brahms relationship with Clara Schumann was a long, close, emotionally and psychologically rich relationship that was quite literally the emotional mainstay of Brahms’ life.  True, he chose not to marry Clara, and the relationship was conflicted, but it was a long way from Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

Swafford tells us, “Brahms felt intimacy as a threat.” (Swafford, 1997, p. 30)  But Brahms had many well documented relationships of profound intimacy and seriousness.  If you simply listen to his music, you can see that this statement is baseless.  How could Brahms write music of such profound depth and emotional richness if he experienced intimacy as a threat?  Brahms wrote volumes of music that is extremely tender and intimate.  Listening to Brahms’ music one hears a very complex man.  Brahms’ music has rage and vehemence, turmoil and contention, regret and grief, profound reflection and sadness, harshness and tenderness — and sometimes a lively good spirit.  Swafford’s statement is not credible and indicates a desire to impose a disparaging moral interpretation on Brahms’ life that has nothing to do with the reality he experienced.

He felt female sexuality as a threat?  Why don’t we ask the whores about that?  They would know best.  But Swafford has not done that.  Swafford is ignorant and a prude and is presenting a distorted image of Brahms that reflects his own biases and sexual conservatism

The simple facts are that Brahms insisted all his life that he played in rough waterfront taverns, that he was abused by prostitutes, that the experience left a “deep shadow on his mind,” that it wrecked his relations with women—and that it ultimately strengthened him. (Swafford, 2001, p. 275)

The word “abuse” is not Brahms word.  It is an interpretation by Swafford, as is the conclusion that it “wrecked his relations with women.”  In fact, it did not wreck his relations with women.  Besides his long relationship with Clara Schumann, Brahms had numerous liaisons and relationship of various kinds with women, among the documented are: Luise Meyer-Dustmann, (Avins, p. 246)  Ottilie Ebner (Avins, pp. 425-26), Bertha Porubsky (Avins, pp. 202-207), Agathe von Spiebold, to whom he was briefly engaged (Avins, p. 173f; Gal, 1963, pp. 94-95).  If you look at Brahms letters to his many female friends and lovers, it is plain and clear that Brahms felt love, passion, warmth, and deep good will toward his many women.

This quote from a memoir Agathe von Siebold wrote many years later does not evince misogyny on the part of Brahms or an inability to be intimate.

I think I may say that from that time until the present, a golden light has been cast on my life, and that even now, in my late old age, something of the radiance of that unforgettable time has remained.  I loved Johannes Brahms very much, and for a short time, he loved me.  (Avins, p. 173)

He had a relationship with Elizabeth von Stockhausen whom he came to know when she was sixteen.  Brahms taught her piano and found himself falling in love with her from which he reportedly withdrew.  She married a man named Heinrich von Herzogenberg a few years later, and Brahms continued a fairly close relationship with both of them.  Elizabeth became a long time musical confidant and critic for Brahms.

Hermine Spies was a much younger woman with whom Brahms was preoccupied for several years during his early fifties.  (Neunzig, 2003, p.102; Avins, 1997, p.603, 637, 647) She once wrote Brahms describing a frolic she had with two other men on a beach, and Brahms responded with pointed and suggestive jealousy.

Dear very esteemed, or esteemed and very dear Fraulein!

Eight pages I wrote you yesterday, but I cannot send them off, they are a pure and unadulterated E flat minor chord, so sad, and by the way replete with poisonous envy of cellists and poets, and how well off they are! . . .

Greetings to your slaves or friends, whose elongated shapes must surely be getting tiresome — a change is definitely needed there!  And that might as well be provided by your poor, complaining

Outsider!  (Avins, 1997, pp. 647-48)

Gal mistakenly claims that Brahms was celibate and lonely (Gal, 1963, p.88).  The first is certainly not true, as the above letter, for one, suggests.  Schauffler reports, “‘He was highly sexed,'” Professor Kahn tells me.  And this is confirmed by many of his other living friends.” (Schauffler, 1972, p. 284)  Although Brahms lived alone, he was not isolated.  Swafford tells us, “Brahms remained a lone wolf in the midst of friends and fame, as happy living alone in his Karlgasse rooms as out in company.” (Swafford, 1997, p. 427)  If Brahms was lonely, I think it came from a feeling of being misunderstood by the people around him, even his closest friends.

In Bonn, Clara invited young Max Kalbeck, who had come on Brahms’ recommendation to consult with her about editing Robert’s letters, to return to Frankfurt with them and stay over to celebrate Johannes’s forty-seventh birthday.  At home on May 7, she played the new Opus 79 Rhapsodies for the assembled guests.  Brahms had been in a foul  mood throughout the visit, and Clara asked Kalbeck if he knew why.  The young man had no idea.  Suddenly Clara’s eyes filled with tears.  ‘Would you believe,’ she said to Brahms’ future biographer, ‘that in spite of our long and intimate friendship Johannes has never told me anything about what excites him or upsets him?   He is just as much of a riddle, I could almost say as much of a stranger, as he was to me twenty-five years ago. (Swafford, 1997, p. 459)

Being married to Clara would not have helped this.  In fact, it might have made it worse.  And notice that Clara called her friendship with Brahms “intimate,” contradicting Swafford.

Schauffler reports another early relationship with a female almost in passing that made me pause and wonder.  In 1847, when Brahms would have been fourteen, he was invited by one, Adolph Giesemann, to spend a long sojourn in the country about sixty miles outside of Hamburg in Winsen.  There he taught Giesemann’s little daughter on the piano, came to love the woodlands and meadows of the countryside, conducted a men’s chorus, and

Mr. Charles Muller of New York tells me that his mother, Matilde Kock, then a lass of thirteen, used to spend many hours of this vacation playing four-hand duets with Hannes. (Schauffler, 1972, p. 38)

What about that?  This is a fourteen year old boy who had been socialized and sexualized in the rough Hamburg brothels spending long hours sitting side by side a thirteen year old girl at the piano playing four-hand duets.  Would you let your thirteen year old daughter sit that long leg to leg next to a boy like Brahms?

Swafford gives a different version of this relationship that makes Giesemann’s daughter, Lieschen, the thirteen year old piano companion and does not mention Matilde Kock (Swafford, 1997, pp. 34-5).  I am inclined to give more credence to Schauffler’s account — even though it is third hand — because Schauffler impresses me as striving for facts and authenticity, whereas Swafford, although a much more polished scholar and writer, is attempting to craft an image of Brahms consistent with his conservative moral and social biases.  Schauffler traveled widely over many years searching out people who knew Brahms, interviewed them, ferreted out documents.  His anecdotes are sometimes hearsay by third parties and many years removed from the events.  But he had a real passion for discovering the unknown facts about Brahms life and strived to authenticate everything as best he could.  He might have made some mistakes, but I think he had an honest heart.  I don’t feel that way about Swafford.  Opposite the title page of Schauffler’s book is an 1894 photograph of Brahms with his arm around eighteen year old Henrietta Hemala: a very unmisogynistic late portrait.

The many whores with whom Brahms consorted are not documented, but it is quite likely that Brahms liked many of them very much.  I would surmise that collectively they were as important as any of the women who are well documented, but they left no writings and were not involved in music.  I found the following reports in Schauffler.

Brahms found what solace he could in his venal loves of the moment.  In general, it may be safely asserted that servants, provided they were simple enough daughters of simple enough people, were the prostitutes’ only rivals for his sexual interest.

Mr. Oscar Ullmann of New York, who in his youth used to know Brahms well in Ischl, tells me that a very pretty girl working for concert manager Kugel was a favorite with the Master.  She told my informant what a passionate but awkward lover Brahms was.  (Schauffler, 1972, p. 277)

Before he had lived long in Vienna, Brahms knew most of the daughters of joy by name, and when he walked up the Kärnthnerstrasse they would greet him with affectionate enthusiasm as “Herr Doktor!”  If hard pressed, they would seek him out in some cafe, and he would always cheerfully give them two gulden, or more if they needed it.

A now celebrated musician has told me that in his youth Brahms recommended a certain public woman to him; and when he looked her up, she could not find words enough in praise of Herr Doktor, who had, she bore witness, treated her with the indulgent tenderness of a father.

“After a concert,” Frau Prof. Brüll tells me, “our party set out for a cafe.  Brahms gave me his arm and we met some streetwalkers, who hailed him with enthusiasm, embarrassing him very much.”  (Schauffler, 1972, p. 259)

How do you get misogyny out of all of this?  The only thing that Greenberg has to support his viewpoint is that Brahms didn’t marry; he preferred to live alone; he preferred the company of men; and he liked whores for sex.  So does that mean he didn’t like Women?  People who call Brahms a “misogynist” simply do not approve of his personal life.  The label says more about them that it does about Brahms.

Greenberg tells us about a trick rocking chair Brahms had in his living room that he invited unsuspecting women to sit in which would then throw them into embarrassing poses at which Brahms would laugh with uproarious, sadistic glee.  Greenberg takes this as telling evidence that Brahms did not like women.  The women that he perched in that chair were probably not his favorites, and the rocking chair served as a useful device for keeping these unwanted women away from him, but he did it with some good humor, albeit a little rough.

The rocking chair is a mischievous, childish, mildly sadistic device that gave Brahms a chance to mock the modesty and prudishness of middle class women who invaded his space, and it also served to keep these awful women that he despised, and who might have had designs on him, at a distance.  It is very unlikely that his prostitute friends would have been upset by the chair (but they never visited his residence).  They probably would have shared in the laugh.

Abraham Lincoln had some similarities in his character to Brahms.  He preferred the company of males.  He was noticeably uncomfortable around women and tended to avoid them.  He was very unhappily married to a woman who was mentally ill (Ferguson, 2010).  Lincoln was actually much more negative in his orientation and attitude toward women than Brahms, but no one calls Lincoln a misogynist.  Actually this pattern exemplified by Brahms and Lincoln was very typical for the nineteenth century male.  The sexes were more segregated in their social roles and same sex companionship was much more the norm and much more emotionally rich than it is today, especially for males (Ferguson, 2008).

Brahms’ attitude toward women was not any more negative than anyone else’s in nineteenth century Germany.  In fact, Brahms was probably more positive and nuanced than most.  It should be kept in mind that over the span of Brahms’ life women did not have the vote in Germany.  Germany did not even become unified as a nation state until 1871, well into Brahms life.  Married women did not have property rights.  They could not enter the university.  Their legal rights and social possibilities were unimaginably restricted by today’s standards.  Social agitation for women’s rights was only beginning to coalesce toward the end of Brahms’ life.  We can sit in our armchairs and pass judgment on the entire nineteenth century, but it is a meaningless exercise in arrogance.  People have to be understood and evaluated in the context of their own time and culture.

Edward M. Clarke, in the 1870s, studied the education of girls and women, arguing for greater equality between the sexes in educational opportunity.  His observations about Germany were that urban girls of the middle and upper classes were educated in schools until about the age of 15 or 16, then if they were educated any further, it would take place at home, perhaps with tutors.  However, peasant girls were not educated at all.

German peasant girls and women work in the field and shop with and like men. None who have seen their stout and brawny arms can doubt the force with which they wield the hoe and axe. I once saw, in the streets of Coblentz, a woman and a donkey yoked to the same cart, while a man, with a whip in his hand, drove the team. The bystanders did not seem to look upon the moving group as if it were an unusual spectacle. The donkey appeared to be the most intelligent and refined of the three. The sight symbolized the physical force and infamous degradation of the lower classes of women in Europe.  (Clarke, 1875, p. 178-79)

Brahms is starting to look better and better all the time.  What does ‘misogyny’ mean in a cultural climate such as nineteenth century Europe?

Brahms’ life, experiences, and attitudes were very typical for his time and culture.  He was not at all anomalous in his sexuality.  Brothels were readily available everywhere in the nineteenth century and men, especially, were sexualized from an early age.  Same sex relations were commonplace and close, affectionate ties between males was the rule, not the exception.  It was not at all unusual for men to prefer the association of other men over women in the nineteenth century, and indeed, many men today share that preference.

I suppose I should interpose a parenthetical comment on the other pressing question which Greenberg made the subject of another presentation in his video series that deals with Johannes Brahms and Clara Schumann:  Did they, or didn’t they? (Greenberg 2015b)  The short answer is: I don’t know.  But it is pretty clear that sex was not the center of this relationship.  Whether it might have been important in the early phase, or episodically, who knows?   But I agree with Avins that this is not the most interesting question to ask about Brahms and Clara (Avins, 1997, p. 757).  Avins, after long and careful study, thinks that the relationship was platonic.  Many others have concurred.  But the evidence is very incomplete and could be misleading.  Clara Schumann also had another significant relationship with Joseph Joachim alongside her relationship with Brahms at the time her last child, Felix was born.   She chose Brahms, Joachim and Mathilde Hartmann to be godparents to the new baby.  Avins notes that many take the fact of the choice of Brahms to be godfather to the boy as evidence that he was the father, but Avins thinks that the child’s having three godparents casts doubt on that.  (Avins, 1997, p. 760)  But the three godparents could also suggest that Clara wasn’t sure who the father was.  We don’t really know what might have gone on in these matters.

The argument I would give for Clara and Brahms’ relationship being platonic is of a different character than what is usually put forward.  I would point out that since Brahms’ sexual preference was for whores and brothels, he didn’t need Clara for sex, and therefore did not press the issue with her, and probably avoided it with her.  Perhaps he explored it with her in the early going and decided that Clara was no match for a St. Pauli girl, and left off with it.  Brahms having an established sexual alternative meant that a nonsexual relationship with Clara was tolerable and perhaps even desirable.  The interesting question that I would ask is to what extent was Clara cognizant of Brahms’ real sex life, and to what extent did Brahms share his adventures in the brothels with her?  If Brahms compartmentalized, that is, kept his sex life strictly separate from his relationships with his music women, then that argues for a platonic attachment to Clara.  Whereas if Brahms told Clara about his whoring adventures with relish, that would suggest a strong sexual component to the relationship.  The former seems the most likely to me.

How much Clara knew about Brahms sex life is less clear.  Brahms, though reserved, does not appear to have been secretive about it, and people do talk.  Something must have gotten back to Clara, but she might not have known the full proportions of it, and she may have been disinclined to probe into it.  She seems wise enough not to have made an issue of it, although many letters were deliberately destroyed, so the full story will probably never be known.

The view that Brahms’ impetuous ardour would have been irresistible for her does not ring true for the mother of seven who was keenly aware of the proprieties, who had borne more children than she had wanted, and who prided herself above all on knowing her duty and fulfilling it conscientiously (Avins, 1997, p. 759)

We can only go on what we have, and there is nothing that conclusively points to an ongoing sexual relationship between Johannes Brahms and Clara Schumann.

In my opinion, a more likely possibility for a sexual liaison, or at least a strong interest, is Brahms’ attachment to Clara’s oldest daughter, Julie.  Brahms was quite distressed when the news came that Julie was to be married, and this anguish caught Clara by surprise — another example of how Clara was out of touch with the emotional life of Brahms in matters relating to sex and romantic attachments (Avins, 1997, p. 394, 759 for more details).  It is always fair game to wonder and speculate about such matters in a person’s life, but it is also true that people tend to imagine more than actually happens, and not everything that actually happens is of great significance, although Brahms’ reaction to Julie’s marriage was reportedly strong.

Schauffler states that from the age of twenty-four Brahms was financially capable of supporting a marriage, but he felt that Brahms was not well suited to marriage, and judged it a plus for Brahms’ work as a composer and for his peace of mind that he did not marry. (Schauffler, 1972, p. 73)  Brahms recognized this as an important need himself to further his creative accomplishments, and in an 1887 letter to Freifrau von Heldberg he expressed this very frankly.

I dislike speaking of myself and my peculiarities.  The confession is plain:  I  need absolute solitude, not only in order to accomplish what I am capable of, but also, quite generally, to think about my vocation. . . But just now, with a new and major work sitting finished before me, I really do take some pleasure in it and have to say to myself:  I would not have written it had I enjoyed life ever so splendidly on the Rhine and in Berchtesgaden. (Brahms to Freifrau von Heldberg August 11, 1887, Avins p. 645)

Schauffler does relate an incident, though, that reveals the negative side of Brahms’ feelings toward women.  It was told to him by Max Friedlander about a birthday dinner for Brahms where some heavy drinking took place.  It should be noted that one aspect of the brothel culture that Brahms did not carry with him into his adult life was its promotion of heavy drinking.  Although Brahms was not sympathetic to the temperance movement which was gaining strength in his later years (Avins, p. 636), as an adult he drank very little, although there were exceptions.  And this birthday dinner was one of them.  It was his birthday and the champagne was good.

Brahms grew more and more silent, but nobody noticed anything curious about him.  The talk turned on a beautiful woman whom we all knew.  Still the Master was silent — until someone pressed him for his opinion.  That was a moment which I shall never forget!  Abruptly his harsh voice broke into a horrible, coarse tirade against this lady, broadening out to include women in general, and actually ended by applying to them all an incredible, unspeakable epithet — a word so vile that I have never been able to repeat it, even to my wife. (Schauffler, 1972, p. 224)

Later, after some coffee and a walk in the park, Friedlander and Brahms discussed the incident.

‘Look here,’ he demanded abruptly, ‘how were you brought up?’  So I told him of my childhood in the rather poor Silesian home with the six brothers and sisters of us; how devotedly my parents were attached to one another, how tenderly we were guarded from everything ugly and painful, and so on.

Suddenly Brahms burst with violence into my reminiscences, making a furiously angry scene in the middle of the Prater.  His eyes grew bloodshot.  The veins in his forehead stood out.  His hair and beard seemed to bristle.

‘And you,’ he cried menacingly, ‘you who have been reared in cotton wool;  you who have been protected from everything coarse — you tell me I should have the same respect, the same exalted homage for women that you have!’ (I had not, of course, put this into words, but his sensitive soul had caught my unuttered reproaches.) ‘You expect that of a man cursed with a childhood like mine!’

Then with bitter passion he recounted his poverty-stricken youth in the wretched slums of Hamburg; how as a shaver of nine, he was already a fairly competent pianist; and how his father would drag him from bed to play for dancing and accompany obscene songs in the most depraved dives of the St. Pauli quarter.

‘Do you know those places?’ he asked.  ‘Only from the outside.’  ‘Then you can’t have the least idea of what they are really like.  And in those days they were still worse.  They were filled with the lowest sort of public women — the so-called “Singing Girls.”  When the sailing ships made port after months of continuous voyaging, the sailors would rush out of them like beasts of prey, looking for women.  And these half-clad girls to make the men still wilder, used to take me on their laps between dances, kiss and caress and excite me.  That was my first impression of the love of women.  And you expect me to honour them as you do!’  It was long before his anger simmered down and we left the park. (Schauffler, 1972, pp. 225-26)

For the purpose of this discussion we will take Friedlander’s report at face value and not question its veracity or any bias that may be distorting it — which, I think, is a generous assumption.  What does it show about Brahms?

This is Brahms’ response to Friedlander, Swafford, Greenberg, Schauffler, and all the other saintly would-be biographers.  “Who the hell do you think you are to tell me I should hold women in the same high esteem that you do?”  Brahms knew a different side of women, a different type of woman than the middle class women who came to him for piano lessons.  The whores in the brothels didn’t play the piano and didn’t want piano lessons.  They didn’t care about his piano rhapsodies or his string quartets.  They wanted something else.  And, if you notice, the women Brahms despised were the middle class women, such as the one that touched off the tirade at the dinner party, not the whores.  But Greenberg thinks if you like whores and you don’t like prudish middle class women, then you are a misogynist.  A drunken rant against women does not make Brahms a misogynist.  It just means he is in a bad mood.  Misogyny is about the big picture; it is about pervasive trends and patterns of behavior, and in Brahms’ case the big picture regarding women, while mixed, is decidedly positive.

‘Misogyny’ is a term with a simple definition, but it does not really describe anybody.  It is used rather to tar someone whose behavior or lifestyle one disapproves of.   Misogyny is bad.  We aren’t supposed to be misogynistic in this enlightened day and age.  So if you can stick that label on someone, that means they’re a bad person and you are justified in disliking them, hating them, dismissing them, and inflicting all sorts of abuse on them.  The simplistic use of ‘misogyny’ that equates any negative feeling toward women with a general, implacable hatred can be used to vilify almost anybody.  All males have ambivalent feelings about women and all men have episodes in their lives where they might have behaved better toward particular women.  Relations between the sexes are inherently conflicted and have many sharp edges.  This doesn’t mean that we are mortal enemies, or that we don’t like each other in principle.  Even women could be labeled as misogynists.  ‘Misogyny’ is one of these terms we use to marginalize people we don’t like and want to transform into social outcasts.  It is an oversimplification that should be abandoned.

Avins, to her credit, noticed that

Amidst all the speculation as to why Brahms never married, virtually no attention has been paid to the unhappy marriage he was continual witness to as he was growing up. (Avins, 1997, p. 334)

Avins also notes that Brahms’ brother, Fritz, also never married.  This is a much more promising approach to understanding Brahms’ avoidance of marriage than anything that might have happened in the Hamburg brothels.  His parents were his primary role model for marriage.  If their marriage was something that looked good and inspiring to the young Brahms, (in the way Friedlander’s parents did to him) that ambition would have survived the dissoluteness of the brothels.  If indeed the brothels were so awful and the experiences there so abusive and disagreeable, Brahms would have had all the more reason to gravitate toward marriage as a glowing salvation.  He had plenty of opportunities and plenty of encouragement in his adult life to do that.  But he didn’t.  Instead he disparaged marriage, repudiated it, and kept the whores.  Brahms’ life, and his experiences with women, sex, and marriage confirm that his experience in the brothels represented his authentic, egosyntonic self.  He rejected and despised the prudishness and sexual conservatism of the middle class society into which he emerged as an adult.   His heart remained true to his roots in those Hamburg brothels.  That is the judgment that is so hard for people like Greenberg, Swafford, Avins, Gal, and Schauffler to swallow.  They chorus that there must be something wrong with Brahms!  Brahms is damaged; Brahms is screwed up; Brahms is defective!  All because he didn’t get married.  The whores must have done this to him, those bad girls!  What is wrong with these people?  Let Brahms be Brahms.  If Brahms accomplishments have any bearing on the matter, then maybe people should not get married.

But they don’t even give his parents so much as a glance. Yet this is really the key to understanding Brahms’ lifelong aversion to marriage, not the brothels.  If they did look at his parents’ marriage, they might have to face the discomfiting truth that marriage is not all that good for most people, that marriage screws up a lot of people for life, as well as a lot of children, and there are a lot of advantages to whores in the eyes of many men.

[In 1864] he returned to Hamburg to find his family in disastrous discord.  His parents had come to a bitter parting of the ways, his father insisting he could no longer live with an aged wife and the ailing daughter he viewed as a malingerer (she suffered from migraine headaches).  The events leading to this crisis are impossible to sort out in detail, given the surviving facts.  .  .  The current difficulty was nothing new.  Life in the Brahms household had been troubled for a very long time, as witnessed by the details of the letter Christiane Brahms wrote to Johannes just before her death (Letter 191), and had now come to a terrible climax. By July, Johann Jakob had left his family and stopped supporting his 73 year old wife, who was becoming blind.  She too was forced to move.  Brother Fritz and sister Elise never forgave their father; to Clara’s astonishment, Brahms had some understanding for him, as indeed he did for all the parties involved, and he tried to reconcile his parents.  When that failed, he urged the family to remain on speaking terms (in vain), acted as go-between when that too failed, and did his utmost to provide money for mother, father, and sister.  As a consequence, the next few years were the leanest ones of his life, as there were now separate households to pay for.  (Avins, 1997, p. 297-98)

Nothing to recommend marriage in any of this.

The 1864 letter Avins mentions (no 191, Avins, 1997, pp. 311-17) from Brahms’ mother to himself is a long, melancholy litany detailing her side of the marriage to Brahms’ father from beginning to end.  If you want to understand why Brahms feared marriage, take a look at this. I won’t quote it because there is too much, but it is clear that Brahms’ did not have an appealing example of marriage to inspire him or model himself on from his parents, and this had much more to do with his avoidance of marriage than his cavorting with the whores.

Swafford tells us that when Brahms’ parents married, his father was twenty-four and his mother forty-one. (Swafford, 1997, p. 13f.)  Brahms was born in the red-light district of Hamburg in 1833.  Swafford alludes to accumulated incompatibilities in the marriage of Brahms’ parents, which he doesn’t specify, but attributes to their difference in age (again demonstrating his ignorance and superficiality in understanding human relations).  One thing that everyone (except Avins and Hofmann) agrees on, but no one seems to grasp the significance of, is the fact that it was Brahms’ father who took the young boy to the brothels and got him the job playing the piano for the revelers.  This implies that his father must have been familiar with these establishments.  I doubt if they were answering a want ad.  This means that Johann Jakob knew the environment that he was taking his young son into, the kind of activities he would be exposed to, the kind of experiences he was likely to have, and he didn’t seem to have a problem with it.  This may additionally have been a partial reflection on his marriage to Brahms’ mother, Christiane.  The young boy, Hannes, absorbed this, and made a good strong identification with his father and with his father’s sexual pattern.  As an adult, he preferred whores and shunned marriage, very much in keeping with the example set by his father.  Don’t blame it on the whores.

To be sure, Brahms had a lot of negative feelings toward women; he tended to disparage them, avoided their company, and this is evident in his personal relationships, including with Clara.  He once confessed to being prejudiced against women pianists.  “I have a powerful prejudice against women pianists and anxiously avoid listening to them.” (Avins, p. 502)  However, he did ask Clara to play through all of his songs prior to their publication “and say a word to me about them.”  (Avins, 1997, 509)  Brahms behavior toward women shows inner conflict and contradictory trends, but not implacable hatred.

It is patently mistaken to attempt to trace this back to the Hamburg brothels. The kind of attitude toward women that we see in Brahms was very typical for nineteenth century Europe (and America).  The label  ‘misogyny’ distorts and simplifies it to the point where it becomes mendacious.  I would further speculate that the negative feelings Brahms expressed at times toward women went back primarily to his mother, rather than the whores in the brothels.  From an early age Brahms likely sympathized with his father, identified with his father, and perhaps took his father’s part and held his mother responsible for the ills in their marriage.  That is speculative.  But it is certainly not fear of sexuality as Swafford tries to insist.

The stain of Hamburg prostitutes continued to taint all his response to women.  He feared their sexuality, and like many self-protective, solitary men, feared even more the sexual and emotional power women wielded over him. (Swafford, 1997, p. 323)

Brahms was not afraid of sex.  Gal tells us that “Brahms was and remained a worshipper of feminine beauty, easily set afire but apparently just as easily cooled off.” (p. 94)  And as we noted earlier Schauffler reported from numerous sources that Brahms was highly sexed.  Some of his hostility toward women was born of attraction coupled with fear.  A temptation that is regarded as dangerous can provoke a hostile response in a person.  But the fear is not of sex.  His penchant for whores disproves that.  The fear is of being enmeshed in the kind of morass that his family was mired in, and that wrecked his father’s life.

You can’t underestimate the influence of his father, Johan Jakob, on Brahms.  Brahms saw his father’s dissatisfaction with his marriage from a very early age, and he also saw the satisfaction his father took in the brothels and in other sexual liaisons outside of his marriage.  His father clearly wanted Brahms to be sexualized in the brothels at a very early age, rather than saving himself for marriage.  And it took root.  Brahms was sympathetic to his father.  He did not despise him or repudiate him.  In letters as an adult he addressed him as “Beloved Father, ” “Dearest Father.” (Avins, 1997, pp. 333, 345, 347, 399, etc.)  He had an especially warm relationship with his father with good communication.  He enthusiastically endorsed his father’s remarriage in 1865 following his mother’s death and supported him financially as well (Avins, 1997, pp. 333f.).  He took the good in his father’s example, namely, the whores and the brothels, and rejected the bad: marriage.

The attempt by Greenberg, Swafford and the other biographers to blame the shape of Brahms personal life on his early experiences in the brothels of Hamburg is misguided and yields a distorted image of Brahms that is out of sync with the reality that he himself experienced and felt.  These biographers are men who are deeply committed to marriage and sexual conservatism as the normative lifestyle for people, and Brahms was an adamant dissenter from that social tide.  Greenberg, Swafford, and Schauffler are much more threatened by Brahms than Brahms was by sex.  This is why it is necessary to discredit Brahms, to label him a ‘misogynist’, a psychological misfit, a damaged victim of childhood abuse, etc.  Brahms had a hard childhood, to be sure, and he had a lot of negative feelings toward women.  But he was also resilient and flexible and he was able to respond above his prejudicial dispositions to individual people, and his relations with women, while conflicted and adumbrated in some respects, are warm, often passionate, and overwhelmingly constructive.  The attempt by these biographers to simplify Brahms, or to bring him into line with the moral prejudices or our own time, or to dismiss him with some facile label that carries within it a negative moral judgment, is offensive and intellectually dishonest.

 

 

 

References

 

 

Avins, Styra, Ed. (1997)  Johannes Brahms: Life and Letters.  Oxford, New York:  Oxford University Press.

Clarke, Edward H. (1875)   Sex in Education: Or, a Fair Chance for Girls.  Boston:  James R. Osgood & Company.

Ferguson, Michael (2010)  Was Abraham Lincoln Gay?  Journal of Homosexuality.  Vol. 57, No. 9, pp. 1124-1157.

Ferguson, Michael ( 2008)  Book Review.  Picturing Men:  A Century of Male Relationships in Everyday American Photography, by John Ibson.  Chicago:  University of Chicago Press.  2002.  Journal of Homosexuality  Vol. 55, No. 2, pp. 319-323.

Gal, Hans (1963)  Johannes Brahms:  His Work and Personality.  Translated from the German by Joseph Stein.  New York:  Alfred Knopf.

Greenberg, Robert (2015b)  Brahms, the Ladies, and the Trick Rocking Chair.  Video presentation in the Ora.tv series Scandalous Overtures.  http://www.ora.tv/scandalousovertures/johannes-brahms-brahms-ladies-trick-rocking-chair-0_4vxpe6o87dy8    March 3, 2015.

Greenberg, Robert (2015a)  Johannes Brahms and Clara Schumann: Did They or Didn’t They?.  Video presentation in the Ora.tv series Scandalous Overtures.  http://www.ora.tv/scandalousovertures/johannes-brahms–clara-schumann–0_5gjeid2yimd9  January 29, 2015

Hofmann, Kurt (1986)  Johannes Brahms und Hamburg.  2nd Revised Edition.  Reinbek.

Neunzig, Hans A. (1973 [2003]) Brahms. Translated by Mike Mitchell.  London:  Haus Publishing.

Schauffler, Robert Haven (1933 [1972]) The Unknown Brahms: His Life, Character, and Works; Based on New Material. Westport, CT:  Greenwood Press.

Swafford, Jan (1997)  Johannes Brahms:  A Biography.  New York:  Vintage/Random House.

Swafford, Jan (2001)  Did the Young Brahms Play Piano in Waterfront Bars?  19th Century Music 24/3, pp. 268-275.

The Dawn of Human Culture — Book Review

By Joe Cillo

The Dawn of Human Culture:  A Bold New Theory on what sparked the “Big Bang” of Human Consciousness.  By Richard G.  Klein and Blake Edgar.  New York:  John Wiley & Sons.  2002.

 

 

 

This is the best overview of the archeological perspective on human evolution that I have seen.  I have not seen them all, but I have followed developments in this field for at least forty years.  Reading about the different fossils and different archeological finds and different human ancestors in isolation can be confusing.  It is hard to tell the relationships between one ancient ancestor and another.  It is hard to keep the chronology in mind.  It is not clear what came from what or how and when developments took place.  This book straightens a lot of that out.  It is a clearly written, readable, interesting, well organized presentation, well illustrated with many drawings, charts, and maps that powerfully enhance the text.

The dawn of culture doesn’t really break until the last chapter.  Most of the book is just setting the stage for the dawn of culture.  But that is very OK, because it underlines how long it took to get to the place where what we think of as human culture could appear, and it emphasizes through most of human evolution there was no “culture” as we think of it.  People have been making tools out of stone for about 2.5 million years, but if culture means representing ideas to one’s fellow creatures, thinking beyond day to day survival, that did not exist until very recently, say about 50,000 years ago.

It appears to have been a quantum behavioral and psychological leap.  There was no gradual evolution toward “culture.”  It seems to have exploded with modern humans after about 50-60,000 years ago, and within a relatively short time spread to the far corners of the earth.  This seems to call out for an explanation since the ways of life, technology, economy, social organization, and relationship to the natural world remained relatively stable in human ancestor populations for eons prior.  Human anatomy has been stable for about 200,000 years.  Brian Sykes tells us that all living humans can be traced to a single woman living in East Africa about 150,000, years ago, and all non-African modern humans can be traced through another East African woman about 50,000 years later.  (Sykes, 2001, pp. 276-78)  So modern humans, homo sapiens sapiens, have been established as a species for at least 150,000 years.  But culture did not appear until about 100,000 years into that span.  What took so long?  And when it did appear, it came in a flood.  It was around that time that modern humans began to migrate out of Africa and displace all of the proto-human ancestor populations like the Neanderthals, homo erectus, and perhaps others in the Middle East, Europe, and Asia.  Technology dramatically changed.  Stone tools developed much greater variety and sophistication.  Beads and jewelry appeared.  The first sculptures and figurines were made.  Cave painters began painting magnificent murals on the walls of caves starting at least 32,000 years ago.  What was the spark that lit this fire?

Klein and Edgar think it had to do with a genetic mutation that altered brain function and/or anatomy.  They cite a 2001 paper by Lai, et al.  (Lai, et al, 2001) that claims to have discovered a gene that plays a role in language development.  Were such a gene to be missing or mutated in non-human hominids, it could explain why humans have spoken languages and non-human hominids didn’t.  If that were a gene that mutated in a small human population 50,000 or so years ago and allowed people to develop spoken languages, it could have been the point at which modern humans leaped into the Late Stone Age.   The problem with it is that it is putting a lot on one gene.  This kind of theory is going to be hard to validate from fossils.  The human brain reached nearly its full size by 600,000 years ago.  The Neanderthals actually had larger brains that we do.  So size isn’t everything.  Klein and Edgar think that a genetic modification altered the organization of the brain that allowed for the development of spoken languages.  Spoken languages are considered to be closely linked to the development of “culture.”  Spoken languages powerfully change social relations between people, facilitate organization, enable human beings to develop ideas, modify behaviors, make corrections, improve things, “advance.”  The Neanderthals lived in Europe and the Middle East for at least 200,000 years.  But their technology and way of life did not change very much over that vast time period.  Once modern humans set the cultural snowball rolling it has been growing and accelerating at an increasing pace ever since, to the point where we now completely dominate the globe and are on the verge of destroying it, ourselves, and everything else.  Human intelligence and human culture may turn out to be a failed evolutionary experiment.

I don’t have an opinion on what sparked the advent of human culture.  Klein and Edgar’s hypothesis is speculative.  It could have some plausibility, but the arguments are inconclusive.  The real value of this book, aside from wrestling with the issue of how human culture originated, is its clear, comprehensive, well organized, well illustrated exposition of the evolution of the human species from the fossil record, how that record was assembled, and the issues and controversies that accompanied its growth.  This book makes it all much more comprehensible than anything else I have seen to date.

 

 

Notes

 

Lai, Cecelia S. L.; Fisher, Simon E.; Hurst, Jane A.; Vargha-Khadem, Faraneh; Monaco, Anthony P. (2001)  A forkhead-domain gene is mutated in a severe speech and language disorder.  Nature 413: 519-23.

Sykes, Brian (2001)  The Seven Daughters of Eve:  The Science that Reveals our Genetic Ancestry.  New York & London:  W.W. Norton.

A Month in the Country Not Always a Vacation

By Joe Cillo

A Month in the Country Not Always a Vacation
Russian drama requires some effort from American audiences. We must distinguish the Kolyas from the Katyas, the Alexseys from the Arkadys, and then we need to adapt to political and family systems that were in place at the time. Most Russian drama performed here is from Chekhov, but Ross Valley Players’ new production is pre-Chekhovian, “A Month in the Country” by Ivan Turgenev. Its Russian gloom has been brightened by an adaptation from Irish playwright Brian Friel and by lively direction from James Nelson.
First, the audience is warned that cossacks will be on hand to enforce the no cell phone rules, and then the garden wall opens to reveal a comfortably-furnished country estate with a card game going on in the background. The game is being made more difficult by the German tutor’s language struggles. When Herr Schaaf accuses his partners of “stealing the cat,” they stop and correct him: “the kitty.”
Natalya, the lady of the house, lounges on a nearby sofa, wheedling a long-time admirer to read to her and whining how sick she is of these “gloomy, airless rooms, just like those of the lace makers.” Michel, the admirer, clearly adores her, though it’s hard to see why.
Residents and visitors come and go with other complaints and needs. Natalya’s husband Arkady Islayev bursts in, full of enthusiasm for his new winnowing machine, but explaining to all who will listen about the need to supervise Russian workmen. Two household servants, Matvey and Katya, continue their disagreement about Matvey’s marriage proposal and whether or not he’s too old for her.
Anna, Arkady’s dignified mother lives here on the estate, and so does Lizaveta, a snuff-sniffing companion. Neither of them seems to have much to do, other than maintain the status quo.
A new member has recently joined the household: Alexsay, another tutor for the Islayevs’ son. Natalya is besotted with the handsome young man. The possibility of forbidden romance relieves her boredom, though he’s only twenty-one , and she’s twenty-nine. However, an attractive seventeen-year-old girl is also on the premises, a foster daughter named Vera, and she’s interested in Alexsey as well. Seeing Natalya’s distress, Dr. Shpigelsky says he’s found a perfect husband for Vera. It will turn out that the suitor is a rich neighbor, fifty-seven years old. This suggestion brings on more conflict. And when Natalya’s husband becomes dimly aware of Michel’s infatuation with his wife, he comes up with an astonishing way to keep everybody happy. Who will stay here? Who will go?
Director James Nelson sees Turgenev’s play as “the destructive and incendiary nature of desire,” with each character involved in “a web of romantic pursuit” that contrasts with their polite and ordered setting.
Ken Rowland designed the set for them, a garden and interior suitable for country gentility. Michael A. Berg fashioned costumes for the different social classes of the 1840’s.
Shannon Veon Kase has the difficult role of Natalya, petulant, spoiled and sometimes shrill in her discontent. Her devoted Michel, subtly played by Ben Ortega, seems genuinely lovable, though unloved. Tom Hudgens portrays Arkady, the tradition-bound husband, with natural authority, while Wood Lockhart depicts Dr. Shpiegelsky’s self-awareness and good humor.
Zach Stewart plays the appealing tutor, Alexsey, and Emily Ludlow is talented young Vera. The arguing servants, Matvey and Katya, are acted by Johnny DeBernard and Jocelyn Roddie. Robyn Wiley is the snuff-addicted Lizaveta, and Kim Bromley is the estate’s distinguished owner, Anna. The outsider, Herr Schaaf, is given a humorous turn by Mark Shepard, with Frederick Lein as the unwelcome suitor, Bolshintsov.
“A Month in the Country” will be at the Barn Theatre in the Marin Art & Garden Center, Ross, Thursdays through through Sunday April 12. Thursday shows are at 7:30 p.m., Fridays and Saturdays at 8 p.m., and Sunday matinees at 2 p.m.
(NOTE: There will be both 2 p.m. and 8 p.m. performances on Saturday, April 11.
Ticket prices range from $14 to $29. For complete information, call 415-456-9555 or see www.rossvalleyplayer.com

up with an astonishing way to keep everybody happy. Who will stay here? Who will go?
Director James Nelson sees Turgenev’s play as “the destructive and incendiary nature of desire,” with each character involved in “a web of romantic pursuit” that contrasts with their polite and ordered setting.
Ken Rowland designed the set for them, a garden and interior suitable for country gentility. Michael A. Berg fashioned costumes for the different social classes of the 1840’s.
Shannon Veon Kase has the difficult role of Natalya, petulant, spoiled and sometimes shrill in her discontent. Her devoted Michel, subtly played by Ben Ortega, seems genuinely lovable, though unloved. Tom Hudgens portrays Arkady, the tradition-bound husband, with natural authority, while Wood Lockhart depicts Dr. Shpiegelsky’s self-awareness and good humor.
Zach Stewart plays the appealing tutor, Alexsey, and Emily Ludlow is talented young Vera. The arguing servants, Matvey and Katya, are acted by Johnny DeBernard and Jocelyn Roddie. Robyn Wiley is the snuff-addicted Lizaveta, and Kim Bromley is the estate’s distinguished owner, Anna. The outsider, Herr Schaaf, is given a humorous turn by Mark Shepard, with Frederick Lein as the unwelcome suitor, Bolshintsov.
“A Month in the Country” will be at the Barn Theatre in the Marin Art & Garden Center, Ross, Thursdays through through Sunday April 12. Thursday shows are at 7:30 p.m., Fridays and Saturdays at 8 p.m., and Sunday matinees at 2 p.m.
(NOTE: There will be both 2 p.m. and 8 p.m. performances on Saturday, April 11.
Ticket prices range from $14 to $29. For complete information, call 415-456-9555 or see www.rossvalleyplayers.com

Vera. The arguing servants, Matvey and Katya, are acted by Johnny DeBernard and Jocelyn Roddie. Robyn Wiley is the snuff-addicted Lizaveta, and Kim Bromley is the estate’s distinguished owner, Anna. The outsider, Herr Schaaf, is given a humorous turn by Mark Shepard, with Frederick Lein as the unwelcome suitor, Bolshintsov.
“A Month in the Country” will be at the Barn Theatre in the Marin Art & Garden Center, Ross, Thursdays through through Sunday April 12. Thursday shows are at 7:30 p.m., Fridays and Saturdays at 8 p.m., and Sunday matinees at 2 p.m.
(NOTE: There will be both 2 p.m. and 8 p.m. performances on Saturday, April 11.
Ticket prices range from $14 to $29. For complete information, call 415-456-9555 or see www.rossvalleyplayers.com

670 words By ROSINE REYNOLDS

A Month in the Country Not Always a Vacation
Russian drama requires some effort from American audiences. We must distinguish the Kolyas from the Katyas, the Alexseys from the Arkadys, and then we need to adapt to political and family systems that were in place at the time. Most Russian drama performed here is from Chekhov, but Ross Valley Players’ new production is pre-Chekhovian, “A Month in the Country” by Ivan Turgenev. Its Russian gloom has been brightened by an adaptation from Irish playwright Brian Friel and by lively direction from James Nelson.
First, the audience is warned that cossacks will be on hand to enforce the no cell phone rules, and then the garden wall opens to reveal a comfortably-furnished country estate with a card game going on in the background. The game is being made more difficult by the German tutor’s language struggles. When Herr Schaaf accuses his partners of “stealing the cat,” they stop and correct him: “the kitty.”
Natalya, the lady of the house, lounges on a nearby sofa, wheedling a long-time admirer to read to her and whining how sick she is of these “gloomy, airless rooms, just like those of the lace makers.” Michel, the admirer, clearly adores her, though it’s hard to see why.
Residents and visitors come and go with other complaints and needs. Natalya’s husband Arkady Islayev bursts in, full of enthusiasm for his new winnowing machine, but explaining to all who will listen about the need to supervise Russian workmen. Two household servants, Matvey and Katya, continue their disagreement about Matvey’s marriage proposal and whether or not he’s too old for her.
Anna, Arkady’s dignified mother lives here on the estate, and so does Lizaveta, a snuff-sniffing companion. Neither of them seems to have much to do, other than maintain the status quo.
A new member has recently joined the household: Alexsay, another tutor for the Islayevs’ son. Natalya is besotted with the handsome young man. The possibility of forbidden romance relieves her boredom, though he’s only twenty-one , and she’s twenty-nine. However, an attractive seventeen-year-old girl is also on the premises, a foster daughter named Vera, and she’s interested in Alexsey as well. Seeing Natalya’s distress, Dr. Shpigelsky says he’s found a perfect husband for Vera. It will turn out that the suitor is a rich neighbor, fifty-seven years old. This suggestion brings on more conflict. And when Natalya’s husband becomes dimly aware of Michel’s infatuation with his wife, he comes up with an astonishing way to keep everybody happy. Who will stay here? Who will go?
Director James Nelson sees Turgenev’s play as “the destructive and incendiary nature of desire,” with each character involved in “a web of romantic pursuit” that contrasts with their polite and ordered setting.
Ken Rowland designed the set for them, a garden and interior suitable for country gentility. Michael A. Berg fashioned costumes for the different social classes of the 1840’s.
Shannon Veon Kase has the difficult role of Natalya, petulant, spoiled and sometimes shrill in her discontent. Her devoted Michel, subtly played by Ben Ortega, seems genuinely lovable, though unloved. Tom Hudgens portrays Arkady, the tradition-bound husband, with natural authority, while Wood Lockhart depicts Dr. Shpiegelsky’s self-awareness and good humor.
Zach Stewart plays the appealing tutor, Alexsey, and Emily Ludlow is talented young Vera. The arguing servants, Matvey and Katya, are acted by Johnny DeBernard and Jocelyn Roddie. Robyn Wiley is the snuff-addicted Lizaveta, and Kim Bromley is the estate’s distinguished owner, Anna. The outsider, Herr Schaaf, is given a humorous turn by Mark Shepard, with Frederick Lein as the unwelcome suitor, Bolshintsov.
“A Month in the Country” will be at the Barn Theatre in the Marin Art & Garden Center, Ross, Thursdays through through Sunday April 12. Thursday shows are at 7:30 p.m., Fridays and Saturdays at 8 p.m., and Sunday matinees at 2 p.m.
(NOTE: There will be both 2 p.m. and 8 p.m. performances on Saturday, April 11.
Ticket prices range from $14 to $29. For complete information, call 415-456-9555 or see www.rossvalleyplayer.com

670 words By ROSINE REYNOLDS

A Month in the Country Not Always a Vacation
Russian drama requires some effort from American audiences. We must distinguish the Kolyas from the Katyas, the Alexseys from the Arkadys, and then we need to adapt to political and family systems that were in place at the time. Most Russian drama performed here is from Chekhov, but Ross Valley Players’ new production is pre-Chekhovian, “A Month in the Country” by Ivan Turgenev. Its Russian gloom has been brightened by an adaptation from Irish playwright Brian Friel and by lively direction from James Nelson.
First, the audience is warned that cossacks will be on hand to enforce the no cell phone rules, and then the garden wall opens to reveal a comfortably-furnished country estate with a card game going on in the background. The game is being made more difficult by the German tutor’s language struggles. When Herr Schaaf accuses his partners of “stealing the cat,” they stop and correct him: “the kitty.”
Natalya, the lady of the house, lounges on a nearby sofa, wheedling a long-time admirer to read to her and whining how sick she is of these “gloomy, airless rooms, just like those of the lace makers.” Michel, the admirer, clearly adores her, though it’s hard to see why.
Residents and visitors come and go with other complaints and needs. Natalya’s husband Arkady Islayev bursts in, full of enthusiasm for his new winnowing machine, but explaining to all who will listen about the need to supervise Russian workmen. Two household servants, Matvey and Katya, continue their disagreement about Matvey’s marriage proposal and whether or not he’s too old for her.
Anna, Arkady’s dignified mother lives here on the estate, and so does Lizaveta, a snuff-sniffing companion. Neither of them seems to have much to do, other than maintain the status quo.
A new member has recently joined the household: Alexsay, another tutor for the Islayevs’ son. Natalya is besotted with the handsome young man. The possibility of forbidden romance relieves her boredom, though he’s only twenty-one , and she’s twenty-nine. However, an attractive seventeen-year-old girl is also on the premises, a foster daughter named Vera, and she’s interested in Alexsey as well. Seeing Natalya’s distress, Dr. Shpigelsky says he’s found a perfect husband for Vera. It will turn out that the suitor is a rich neighbor, fifty-seven years old. This suggestion brings on more conflict. And when Natalya’s husband becomes dimly aware of Michel’s infatuation with his wife, he comes up with an astonishing way to keep everybody happy. Who will stay here? Who will go?
Director James Nelson sees Turgenev’s play as “the destructive and incendiary nature of desire,” with each character involved in “a web of romantic pursuit” that contrasts with their polite and ordered setting.
Ken Rowland designed the set for them, a garden and interior suitable for country gentility. Michael A. Berg fashioned costumes for the different social classes of the 1840’s.
Shannon Veon Kase has the difficult role of Natalya, petulant, spoiled and sometimes shrill in her discontent. Her devoted Michel, subtly played by Ben Ortega, seems genuinely lovable, though unloved. Tom Hudgens portrays Arkady, the tradition-bound husband, with natural authority, while Wood Lockhart depicts Dr. Shpiegelsky’s self-awareness and good humor.
Zach Stewart plays the appealing tutor, Alexsey, and Emily Ludlow is talented young Vera. The arguing servants, Matvey and Katya, are acted by Johnny DeBernard and Jocelyn Roddie. Robyn Wiley is the snuff-addicted Lizaveta, and Kim Bromley is the estate’s distinguished owner, Anna. The outsider, Herr Schaaf, is given a humorous turn by Mark Shepard, with Frederick Lein as the unwelcome suitor, Bolshintsov.
“A Month in the Country” will be at the Barn Theatre in the Marin Art & Garden Center, Ross, Thursdays through through Sunday April 12. Thursday shows are at 7:30 p.m., Fridays and Saturdays at 8 p.m., and Sunday matinees at 2 p.m.
(NOTE: There will be both 2 p.m. and 8 p.m. performances on Saturday, April 11.
Ticket prices range from $14 to $29. For complete information, call 415-456-9555 or see www.rossvalleyplayer.com