Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
selenak: (Antinous)
You may or may not have heard about the controversy regarding the the new statue honoring Mary Wollstonecraft. One of the questions I've seen repeatedly raised was: "Which famous male writer and philosopher would be displayed in the nude?" I see your general point, but the answer to this one is obviously Voltaire, in his own life time, no less.

This is a story which I came across in the course of the last year in my current fandom, but it's entertaining enough to be told to a more general audience. And because most people involved were fond of writing, we can, in this case, answer the question "what were they thinking?" precisely. So: it's April 1770. Voltaire hasn't lived in France for many years (though he will return to his city of birth, Paris, a few months before his death). He's living in Ferney, Switzerland, in fact, writing and involving himself as vividly as ever, but he's old, and definitely a living legend. A couple of younger enlightenment writers - among them Diderot, D'Alembert, Helvetius, Melchior Grimm - as well as the sculptor Pigalle - are having dinner in Madame Necker's salon.(Suzanne Necker: currently hostess of one of the most sought after salons in Paris. Wife of Necker the banker and future minister, mother of future writer Germaine de Stael.) And that's when they decide they'll erect a statue to a living writer - which has not been done before in France - to wit, Voltaire. In the nude, symbolizing the quest for truth and echoing what was then believed to be a depiction of Roman philosopher Seneca as he was dying, though the statue in question today is known as "Old Fisherman") (and also in the louvre, as the Voltaire statue).

Voltaire had his vanities, but pride of his physical appearance wasn't among them. He was deeply sceptical when Madame Necker first broke the news to him (and asked whether Pigalle could come to Switzerland for a sitting or several). Quoth he: Monsieur Pigalle is supposed to come to model my face, but, Madame, for this I would need to have a face. One hardly guesses where it lies hidden. My eyes lie three inches deep, my cheeks are old paper, which is badly put on bones that can't hold anything together anymore. What few teeths I had left are gone.


D'Alembert the encyclopedist wrote to soothe him: Genius has, as long as it breathes, a face that can be rendered by the genius of his brother, and Monsieur Pigalle will take the fire from the two diamonds nature has made your eyes and use it to awaken his statue to life. I can't tell you, dear honored comrade, how flattered Monsieur Pigalle is to have been chosen to create this monument for his and the glory of the French nation.

When Pigalle showed up in Ferney, Voltaire just could not sit still, either moved too much, dictated, came and went, or grimaced, and then finally Pigalle lucked out by drawing him into a discussion about the golden calf in the bible. Voltaire said no way the Israelites could have created a statue of gold within four hours, and Pigalle explained to him how such a statue was created and that it usually took six months at least. Voltaire listened, sitting quietly and attentively, and Pigalle was delighted, because at last he had the chance to model him.

(His face, that is. The nude body depicted in the finalized statue was that of an old soldier who modelled for Pigalle later, but the sensational part was that it was indeed shown as physically old.)

Then there was the question of financing the entire enterprise. Not only was Pigalle a sought after arist, but he intended to use Carrara marble. The very material from which Michelangelo had made his statues. This was expensive; he needed 1,5000 livres to purchace the marble in Italy, and that was without transport costs or his own salary. So the enlightenment crowd decided to make it a matter of subscriptions, asking patrons for their money.

Now, Voltaire by 1770 had of course his share of highly placed admirers (along with the even greater share of enemies). The most (in)famous of which was Frederick II. of Prussia; if you want to refresh your memory of the love/hate Friedrich/Voltaire trainwreck, check out these posts. (Or you could just read my story.) Frederick was also famously thrifty - even when he was in the early flush of Voltaire adoration, before their arguments, he had haggled with Voltaire about Voltaire's travel expenses - , and of course, you could never tell on any given day whether he'd praise Voltaire to the skies or curse him as the scum of humanity (usually both). When Madame Necker asked him to sign up as a subscriber, he did ask "how much?" first, and was told "your name and an Ecu" (i.e. the equivalent of a penny) would do. So he signed on, and did fork more money than that, because Voltaire's old school mate the Duc de Richelieu (great grand nephew of the famous Cardinal) was ready to contribute 50 Louisdor. Richelieu then was told this made everyone else look bad, so he diplomatically adjusted it to 20 Louisdor. By then, Friedrich had gotten even, and also contributed what we'd call a "blurb" for the entire project, to wit: The Greece of the ancients would have made him a God, one would have built him a temple: we only erect a statue to him as a pale recompense for all the persecutions he has suffered.

Presumably by "presecutions" Friedrich meant events like Voltaire's several stints in the Bastille, not the time he himself had Voltaire arrested in Frankfurt am Main (which wasn't Prussian territory, and where he had no business arresting people in any fashion whatsoever) just to get his (i.e. Frederick's) poems back. (The poems satirized virtually all over European monarchs, so they were tricky contraband.) In any event, the grand project went on, Pigalle started with his work, and by the spring of 1771, there was a model that already predictably scandalized people (both because of the nudity in general in the depiction of a living person, and the decrepit nudity in particular). King Gustav III. of Sweden (no stranger to scandals himself, and a future that involved being assassinated at a masque ball) asked sarcastially whether he should donate a coat, which was fairly typical as a reaction. There was massive pressure on Pigalle to change his design for the statue. Voltaire himself, having worked through his doubts, had Pigalle's back and said: “Pigalle must remain the absolute master of his statue. It is a crime, in fine art, to cause hindrances to genius. It is not without reason that genius is depicted with wings: it must fly where and how it wants. I ask you to presently see M. Pigalle, and to tell him what I think, to assure him of my friendship, my gratitude and my admiration. All that I can say, is that I have only succeeded, in the arts I have undertaken, when I listened only to myself.”

Pigalle finished the statue in 1776, two years before Voltaire's death. It is dedicated to "“Monsieur de Voltaire, by the people of letters, his compatriots and contemporaries.”. And for many years, it gathered dust, first in Pigalle's studio, as Voltaire's niece and heir, Madame Denis, didn't want it, then in a variety of places including the Academie Francaise. Today, it's in the Louvre, in the Richelieu Wing (and placed in the centre of the Pigalle Room).

Now whether the Wollstonecraft statue will have a similar fate, who knows....
selenak: (VanGogh - Lefaym)
The one advantage if you don't feel passionately about something is that it makes following controversies voyeuristic fun, as opposed to hurtful "but why don't they see....!?!" battle for oneself. My current example is the ongoing reaction to The Iron Lady. (Which I still haven't watched), i.e. the one beyond the "Meryl great, film mediocre" response from both sides of the ideological spectrum. Today's Süddeutsche Zeitung has a fervent Thatcherite named Niles Gardiner being all for the film, with two caveats: a) too much time on Alzheimer, not enough Margareta Triumphans, and b) he wishes that instead of the "the inexperienced Phyllida Llyod, the creator of the musical comedy Mamma Mia" there would have been " Steven Spielberg or David Lean" at hand to direct the epic life of Margaret T.

Dear Mr. Gardiner: be careful what you wish for. I will defend Spielberg's best to the, well, not death, but to the pain, as The Princess Bride would have it, but there's no doubt Our Steven would have somehow managed to make the life of Maggie about the father-son relationship of what's his name, her son (Mark, right?) and the late Denis. As for David Lean, I understand why he's your go to man for visual grandeur, but one would think it hadn't escaped your notice how the late Rajah of the British Film (I think it was Time Magazine who called him that, and I loved it) loved his heroes: neurotic, obsessive, and, by the end of their tale, broken. Well, not all of them - there's a charming movie, Summertime, about Kate Hepburn in Venice where she has a fling with a handsome Italian and at the end is just fine because it's not based on Tennessee Williams - but certainly those you're thinking off. Bridge on the River Kwai? Colonel Nicholson has his stoic and heroic endurance in a cage sequence mid-film. The rest of the time he's busy to help the Japanese build the damn bridge because British Perfectionism Does It Better, which is a tad embarassing when William Holden gets there to blow it up. Lawrence of Arabia? The Lawrence-pulls-off-heroic-stunts-against-the-odds part is over mid-movie as well, and then we get to watch T.E. Lawrence as he goes from There Is No Post To This Traumatic Stress Syndrome after being raped to Even Worse No Post In This Traumatic Stress Syndrome, there's a massacre, his friendships fall apart, and as for the political goal of the film, the free Arabia idea falls apart in a mixture of inner Arabic squabbling and scheming European Imperialism. Now honestly I have no idea what David Lean thought about Margaret Thatcher, or what dramatist Robert Bolt, who was his favourite scriptwriter, thought, though my guess is that since they were both alive in the 80s and most people in the film and theatre were, err, no Friends Of Maggie, to put it mildly... And I'm perfectly willing to believe they'd have made something highly memorable out of her life. But somehow I really, really doubt you'd have liked the result. Visual grandeur not withstanding.
selenak: (Naomie Harris by Lady Turner)
I love it when actual history gives me the rare kind of triangle I like instead of loathe: E. M. Forster shared a policeman with the man's wife for thirty years. Am not surprised this only started to work better once Forster developed a relationship of its own with May (the wife) as well and came to befriend her as a person, instead of just seeing her as a a threat and disruption to his relationship with Bob (the husband). See, in fiction - and I mean pro fic and fanfic alike - I resent a "A and B love each other, but B is also with C/married to C; C however is just a beard/nonety because clearly the love of A and B must reign supreme" scenario. Not only if C is female which C is in about 70 of the cases, at least as far as fanfic is concerned. I mean, it may happen this way, and of course if we're talking history (and present in parts of the world today) then many gay men had to deal with marriages that were a concession to their society's homophobia. But I still always wonder about C and wonder what was/is in it for her (or in rarer cases him), so those rare cases where A loves B and B loves A but B also loves C and A either loves C from the get go or developes feelings for C in the course of the story make me happy as a reader. In this particular case, while I am unsurprised and amused to hear that Forster before meeting Bob Buckingham had this snobbish fantasy of being "looked after by the robust and grateful lower classes" (I mean, I read Maurice) only to find the real article was far more knowledgable and educated and with opinions of his own then he'd imagined, I'm also fascinated at how he went from hostile toleration to actual friendship with May - via an intense correspondance while she was recovering from an illness. Which to me makes so much sense for a writer.

****

Of course, sometimes the historical artefacts that make it into papers are far more of the "oh dear/what the hell" sort. The FBI asking MI5 to spy on Chaplin for them after Chaplin had been banned from returning to the US isn't suprising - though really, chaps, you so deserved Philby, Burgess and McLean when you allowed the cousins to waste your time like that - but George Orwell denouncing him as a secret commie before his (Orwell's) death was. Meanwhile, it's fascinating to watch this British newsreel about Chaplin's arrival in Britain in 1952 for what it doesn't mention, to wit, the news that Chaplin received en route from the US to Britain via ship. You know, that telegram about his greencard being no more. I can't imagine the British media not knowing about this by the time Chaplin arrived (the journey then took a week), and yet, not a word in the newsreel, but a distinct not so subtext of "WE love you even if the Americans don't anymore".

****

Courtesy of the BBCiPlayer, I watched Small Island, a tv two parter based on the novel by Andrea Levy. I haven't read the book but loved the film, minus the voiceover narration which felt like the one from Blade Runner (before Ridley Scott got rid of it in the Director's Cut) in that you get the sense the whole thing was filmed originally without said voiceover and then some studio boss said "but I'm not sure the audience will understand all if you DON'T EXPLAIN STUFF IN DETAIL, get on that", and so they hastily added it. But voiceover aside, the rest is superb, acting and story both. Small Island focuses on Jamaican immigrants to Britain during and after WWII. Though "immigrants" is already an unfair term: as Small Island points out, the Jamaicans were raised to regard England as "the Mother Country" and to revere all things British, only to find themselves in for racism and treatment as anything but equals once they actually were there. (Thus the "small island" of the title is Britain, not Jamaica.) The story is also remarkable for what it gets right by not doing. Because of the main characters, one, Queenie, is white, but at no point do you get the impression the black characters are there to serve her story, or that they need her to get their rights as people. (Queenie, Gilbert and Hortense are occasionally helpful to each other, but it's a two way street always, and they're treated as equally important characters by the narrative in what they all contribute to the plot.) You get a good sense of the Jamaican community, and especially of post-war Britain (still dealing with rationing, war left poverty and rebuilding on all levels). The characters are richly fleshed out and not caricatures, not even Queenie's husband Bernard who easily could have been (he's a dull man, which isn' t the same as a dull character, and very much a bigoted racist, but he's also damaged by his war experience and completely out of his depth with Queenie). (Given that Bernard, who is "only" a supporting character and hence often absent, is played by Benedict Cumberbatch, I wonder how many of Cumberbatch's new fans will watch this and complain he's not being sexy and/or dominating the story.)

The characters who really make Small Island are Hortense (Naomie Harris) and Gilbert (David Oyelowo) (and okay, Queenie (Ruth Wilson), too), the two Jamaicans whose dreams of coming to the "mother country" and experiences with the reality of it move the story along. Their relationship is a story trope which, if well done, I like very much: marriage of convenience between two initially hostile parties who then start to appreciate each other for what they are and come to care deeply as they go through adversities together. Gilbert originally enlists into the RAF out of idealism, finds himself relegated to chauffeur instead of getting the chance to fly, but returns to England after the war nonetheless in hope of better chances. His sense of fun, sociability and natural kindness make him a great foil for Hortense who is tightly controlled, proud and distrustful of strangers. Hortense is a teacher and her dream of becoming a teacher in England is what sets the plot in motion. Wanting to change your life is a running thread through the story - Gilbert and Hortense want it, but also Queenie (who starts out as a working class girl from Yorkshire and comes to London to do just that) and Hortense's cousin/foster brother Michael is the first to leave Jamaica (as he'll later leave England) and has a brief affair with Queenie. The only character who wants to get back to a past status instead of wanting change from life is Bernard.

I kept thinking "where do I know Naomie Harris' voice from" and then it finally clicked from me: she played Kalypso in the Pirates of the Carribean movies. Mind you, it really isn't so easy to recognize her, because a) Kalypso was always shown with heavy make-up, and b) Hortense's precise elocution as a teacher is quite different from the way the films let Kalypso speak. But it was great to see her here in a main part. David Oyelowo I actually had seen on stage before, in the RSC adaption of Aphra Behn's Oronooko (he played the title role), and as Volpone's servant in Volpono; he's incredibly endearing and moving as Gilbert here, the type of screen character you fall in love with.

In conclusion: very much worth watching. On iPlayer or elsewhere!

On a tangentially related and thematic note, I don't know why until 2010 I thought Shirley Bassey was American, but I did, and only two years ago did I discover she was Welsh, from Cardiff, no less. So because RPF has corrupted me and Torchwood has Jack namedropping all the time anyway, I keep wondering whether anyone ever wrote her meeting Jack Harkness. Here she is with one of her signature songs, performed in Cardiff in 1985 when she was already a living legend:

selenak: (Rocking the vote by Noodlebidsnest)
We just got our second presidential resignation in two years. As opposed to Köhler, who did what is called in fannish terms a flounce, Wulff by now seriously had to go, because while our presidents are like the Queen in that they have little to no actual authority, they are supposed to represent the country in a dignified manner and be something of a moral authority, and if you're embroiled in a corruption scandal...

I think what probably settled it for me was that he called our biggest tabloid and ranted on the editor's voicemail about how if a certain story was published there would be no more contact. Because that was so stupid, and because it made me wonder what he has his aides for. (I mean, I watched that Josh Lyman scene.) Once you do that, you best go back to your home province of Lower Saxonia where you can chum and argue with the Bildzeitung at your leisure.

Profile

selenak: (Default)
selenak

May 2025

S M T W T F S
     12 3
456 7 89 10
111213 141516 17
18 192021222324
25262728293031

Most Popular Tags

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Style Credit

Page generated May. 24th, 2025 05:19 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios