David Lynch’s Twin Peaks Theme Song Gets the Seinfeld Treatment

And, by gol­ly, it works…

via Wel­come to Twin Peaks

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Ange­lo Badala­men­ti Reveals How He and David Lynch Com­posed the Twin Peaks‘ “Love Theme”

Hear the Music of David Lynch’s Twin Peaks Played by the Exper­i­men­tal Band, Xiu Xiu: A Free Stream of Their New Album

Watch an Epic, 4‑Hour Video Essay on the Mak­ing & Mythol­o­gy of David Lynch’s Twin Peaks

Twin Peaks Tarot Cards Now Avail­able as 78-Card Deck

David Lynch’s Twin Peaks Title Sequence, Recre­at­ed in an Adorable Paper Ani­ma­tion

Hear the Music of David Lynch’s Twin Peaks Played by the Exper­i­men­tal Band, Xiu Xiu: A Free Stream of Their New Album

Talking Heads Featured on The South Bank Show in 1979: How the Groundbreaking New Wave Band Made Normality Strange Again

“I think sub­ur­ban life is some­thing that almost any Amer­i­can can under­stand,” says Talk­ing Heads drum­mer Chris Frantz near the begin­ning of The South Bank Show’s 1979 episode on the band. “They might dis­like or like it, but they can relate to it. It’s a nice metaphor, or what­ev­er, for mod­ern life.” That obser­va­tion func­tions as well as any as an intro­duc­tion to the band who, after hav­ing debuted as open­ers for the Ramones just four years ear­li­er at CBGB, went on to build a world­wide fan base enthralled with the way their music, their per­for­mances, and even their self-pre­sen­ta­tion ren­dered Amer­i­can nor­mal­i­ty and banal­i­ty new and strange.

Orig­i­nal­ly called “The Artis­tics,” the band found its true name through a dis­so­lu­tion, ref­or­ma­tion, and glance at the pages of TV Guide. “All of us could imme­di­ate­ly relate to that name,” says bassist Tina Wey­mouth. “We also thought it could have many con­no­ta­tions, the most impor­tant of which was that it had no con­no­ta­tion with any exist­ing music form. It’s TV, video — sup­pos­ed­ly the most bor­ing for­mat.” This ethos extend­ed to the song­writ­ing pro­ce­dure of lead vocal­ist and gui­tarist David Byrne, who delib­er­ate­ly used lan­guage and ref­er­ences “that were no more inter­est­ing than nor­mal speech and no more dra­mat­ic and yet some­how, in the song con­text, might become more inter­est­ing.”

The result: albums like 1978’s More Songs About Build­ings and Food. From a dis­tance of near­ly forty years, the Talk­ing Heads of those days look a bit like pio­neers of “norm­core,” the fash­ion, much dis­cussed in recent years, of delib­er­ate­ly look­ing as aes­thet­i­cal­ly aver­age as pos­si­ble. “I’m glad we don’t have to dress up in uni­forms every day,” says Frantz of their refusal of the duel­ing “punk” and “glam” modes of dress sport­ed by so many rock­ers at the time. Byrne speaks of orig­i­nal­ly want­i­ng to wear the most nor­mal out­fits pos­si­ble, as deter­mined by observ­ing peo­ple out on the street, but it turned out that “a lot of aver­age clothes require more upkeep than I’m will­ing to do. Like, they need iron­ing and things like that.”

The idea of norm­core draws its pow­er from the con­tra­dic­tion at its core, and Talk­ing Heads nev­er feared con­tra­dic­tion. “We write songs that have a par­tic­u­lar point of view, and we’re not wor­ried if the next song has the oppo­site point of view,” says key­board and gui­tar play­er Jer­ry Har­ri­son. “We feel that peo­ple have dif­fer­ent ideas, feel dif­fer­ent at dif­fer­ent times of the day as well as at dif­fer­ent times of their life, and we don’t real­ly want to have a man­i­festo or, you know, an ide­ol­o­gy.” (“We’ve gone through so many ide­olo­gies late­ly,” he adds.)

Despite that, Talk­ing Heads always seemed to adhere to cer­tain prin­ci­ples: “I believe a lot of those moral clich­es,” admits Byrne, “like ‘Two wrongs don’t make a right’ or ‘There’s no free lunch’ or ‘If you do bad things it’ll come back to you,’ and all those sort of stu­pid things.” But they nev­er real­ly inhab­it­ed main­stream Amer­i­ca; cul­tur­al­ly hyper-aware urban­ites made up much of their audi­ence, and the band mem­bers them­selves — play­ers, one says, of quin­tes­sen­tial­ly “city music” — were very much denizens of pre-gen­tri­fi­ca­tion Man­hat­tan. “It’s stim­u­lat­ing to go out and see dirt every­where and peo­ple falling over,” says Byrne. “I lived out in the sub­urbs and had a nice place with a big lawn or what­ev­er — although I can’t afford that — if I did live some­where like that, I would be afraid that I would get too com­fort­able and would­n’t work.”

But work they did, so dili­gent­ly and whol­ly with­out the extrav­a­gances of the rock star lifestyle that Frantz, after describ­ing his ear­ly-to-rise lifestyle, says he some­times con­sid­ers him­self “just a glo­ri­fied man­u­al labor­er, and that if any­body it’s the oth­er mem­bers of the band that are that artists. Anoth­er day I’ll think, wow, these peo­ple, the Talk­ing Heads, work­ing togeth­er — some day it’s going to be remem­bered in music his­to­ry, and I think it’s a very artis­tic thing we’re doing. I’m not try­ing to sound high­fa­lutin’, but this is the way I real­ly feel some­times.”

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Talk­ing Heads’ First TV Appear­ance Was on Amer­i­can Band­stand, and It Was Pret­ty Awk­ward (1979)

Watch Talk­ing Heads Play Live in Dort­mund, Ger­many Dur­ing Their Hey­day (1980)

Watch Talk­ing Heads Play a Vin­tage Con­cert in Syra­cuse (1978)

Hear the Ear­li­est Known Talk­ing Heads Record­ings (1975)

Talk­ing Heads Live in Rome, 1980: The Con­cert Film You Haven’t Seen

Talk­ing Heads Play CBGB, the New York Club that Shaped Their Sound (1975)

Based in Seoul, Col­in Mar­shall writes and broad­casts on cities and cul­ture. He’s at work on a book about Los Ange­les, A Los Ange­les Primer, the video series The City in Cin­e­ma, the crowd­fund­ed jour­nal­ism project Where Is the City of the Future?, and the Los Ange­les Review of Books’ Korea Blog. Fol­low him on Twit­ter at @colinmarshall or on Face­book.

Rufus Harley, the First Jazz Musician to Make the Bagpipes His Main Instrument, Performs on I’ve Got a Secret (1966)

Musi­cian Rufus Harley did the peo­ple of Scot­land a great favor when he took up the bag­pipes. Like the Loch Ness Mon­ster and hag­gis, out­side its coun­try of ori­gin, the nation­al instru­ment has evolved into a hack­neyed punch­line.

What bet­ter, more unex­pect­ed ambas­sador for its expand­ed pos­si­bil­i­ties than a cer­ti­fied Amer­i­can jazz cat?

He cer­tain­ly stumped the all-white celebri­ty pan­el when he appeared on Steve Allen’s pop­u­lar TV game show, “I’ve Got a Secret” in 1966.

Politi­cian and for­mer Miss Amer­i­ca Bess Myer­son’s open­ing ques­tion feels a bit impolitic from a 50 year remove:

Is it how well you play it that’s unusu­al?

“Yes, def­i­nite­ly,” Harley agrees.

Hav­ing quick­ly sussed out that the instru­ment in ques­tion is a wood­wind, the pan­el cycles through a list of can­di­dates — flute?

Oboe?

Clar­inet?

No?

A…sweet pota­to?

Once they start bat­ting around sax­o­phones, Allen issues a brisk cor­rec­tive:

He wouldn’t be here tonight if he, you know, just played the sax­o­phone and that was his secret because that wouldn’t be too good a secret. 

Point tak­en.

Some­thing tells me a white guy in a suit and a tie would have elicit­ed less won­der from the pan­el upon the rev­e­la­tion that the instru­ment they failed to guess was the bag­pipes.

On the oth­er hand, here is a per­son of col­or com­mand­ing atten­tion and respect on nation­al tele­vi­sion in 1966, two days after the Black Pan­ther Par­ty was offi­cial­ly found­ed.

Harley had had pro­fes­sion­al train­ing in the sax­o­phone, oboe, trum­pet and flute, but as a bag­piper he was self-taught. As the com­ments on the video above demon­strate, his unortho­dox han­dling of the instru­ment con­tin­ues to con­found more tra­di­tion­al pipers. No mat­ter. The sounds he coaxed out of that thing are unlike any­thing you’re like­ly to hear on the bon­ny, bon­ny banks of Loch Lomond.

At the end of the seg­ment, Harley joined his back up musi­cians onstage for a live, Latin-inflect­ed cov­er of “Feel­ing Good.”

Spo­ti­fy lis­ten­ers can enjoy more of Harley’s dis­tinc­tive pip­ing here.

And just for fun, check out this list of bag­pipe terms.There’s more to this instru­ment than its asso­ci­a­tion with Groundskeep­er Willy might sug­gest.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Hear What is Jazz?: Leonard Bernstein’s Intro­duc­tion to the Great Amer­i­can Art Form (1956)

A Young Frank Zap­pa Turns the Bicy­cle into a Musi­cal Instru­ment on The Steve Allen Show (1963)

John Cage Per­forms Water Walk on US Game Show I’ve Got a Secret (1960)

Ayun Hal­l­i­day is an author, illus­tra­tor, and the­ater mak­er whose lat­est play, Zam­boni Godot, is open­ing in New York City on March 2. Fol­low her @AyunHalliday.

Hayao Miyazaki Meets Akira Kurosawa: Watch the Titans of Japanese Film in Conversation (1993)

Note: Please scroll to the 6:52 mark where the con­ver­sa­tion begins.

The name Miyaza­ki defines Japan­ese ani­ma­tion not just in its own coun­try, but across the world. The name Kuro­sawa does the same for the rest of Japan­ese cin­e­ma. But giv­en their dif­fer­ences of not just spe­cif­ic art form but of gen­er­a­tion (Aki­ra Kuro­sawa was born in 1910, Hayao Miyaza­ki in 1941), one might won­der whether the men them­selves, were they to meet, would have much to talk about. Nip­pon TV put the idea to the test in 1993 by air­ing Miyaza­ki Meets Kuro­sawa, which sends the already renowned ani­ma­tor, whose sixth film Por­co Rosso had come out the pre­vi­ous year, to the home of the long-reign­ing “Emper­or” of Japan­ese film, whose thir­ti­eth and final film Mada­dayo (a title trans­lat­able as Not Yet!) had come out the pre­vi­ous month. Their con­ver­sa­tion starts at the 6:52 mark above.

After a bit of small talk, most­ly about the mag­nif­i­cent view of Mount Fuji from Kuro­sawa’s front porch, the mas­ters get down to shop talk. Kuro­sawa and Miyaza­ki dis­cuss the dif­fi­cul­ty of speak­ing about one’s own work, the sweet taste of sake at the end of a long shoot, the pain of sit­ting at a desk draw­ing day in and day out, what it took to build a slop­ing street for Mada­dayo or an entire cas­tle for Ran (just to burn it down), how to visu­al­ly and son­i­cal­ly evoke the var­i­ous dif­fer­ent eras of Japan­ese his­to­ry, Miyaza­k­i’s appre­ci­a­tion for Kuro­sawa’s sto­ry­boards, and Kuro­sawa’s appre­ci­a­tion for the cat bus in Miyaza­k­i’s My Neigh­bor Totoro — at which point the trans­lat­ed tran­script at fan site nausicaa.net indi­cates that “Miyaza­ki seems to be at a loss for words.” (You can read the tran­script at the bot­tom of the post.)

Though Japan­ese tra­di­tion, to say noth­ing of the cus­toms of one ded­i­cat­ed artist speak­ing to anoth­er, dic­tates that Miyaza­ki dis­play a cer­tain def­er­ence to Kuro­sawa (an atti­tude cer­tain­ly vis­i­ble in the seg­ments of the broad­cast avail­able on Youtube), the two have plen­ty of insight to offer one anoth­er. And how­ev­er dif­fer­ent their films, they all emerged from the same spir­it of painstak­ing ded­i­ca­tion. “If you let things slide think­ing ‘well, this won’t be in view of the cam­era,’ ” Kuro­sawa warns, “then there’s no end to how lazy you can get. You either give it your all, or don’t even both­er.”

Miyaza­ki, who has since risen to a Kuro­sawa-like promi­nence of his own, offers this clos­ing reflec­tion on his first meet­ing with the direc­tor of the likes of RashomonSev­en Samu­rai, and Ikiru: “Whether a work is a mas­ter­piece or… some­thing more mod­est, I real­ized that they all orig­i­nate at the same place — an envi­ron­ment where peo­ple are con­stant­ly think­ing and rethink­ing their own ideas,” rather than wait­ing around for inspi­ra­tion. Instead, they adopt the atti­tude of, “ ‘Regard­less of what they think… or whether or not they like the way I do things, I’m gonna do what has to be done!’ That’s what’s impor­tant.”

A big hat tip goes to Adri­an.

Tran­script, trans­lat­ed by Yuto Shi­na­gawa.

KUROSAWA — One of the set­tings for our movie — the “Oichi­ni [ah one two]” drug sales­man scene — if you recall, is a rec­tan­gu­lar room. What we’d do is use three cam­eras, all on one side of the room to film every­thing from start to fin­ish… after which we’d move the them to anoth­er side of the room, switch out the lens­es, and film the scene over. We’d do this three times…from all four direc­tions. So in the end, there’d be 36 cuts that we had to look through dur­ing editing…just for one scene.

MIYAZAKI — That’s what bog­gles my mind. How do you pick which cuts to use?

KUROSAWA — Pret­ty much on a first come first serve basis for me.

MIYAZAKI — Is that so?

KUROSAWA — You just skim through them real­ly quick…“toss…keep…toss,” so that all you have to do in the end is just string togeth­er what’s left. That’s all there is to it.

MIYAZAKI — Well yes, but…[Laughs]

KUROSAWA — So we might have one seg­ment that seems like it’s going to be a big hassle…perhaps take days to film…but ends up tak­ing only half a day — from morn­ing to 3 o’clock lat­er that day. The same goes with edit­ing — we’d be expect­ing a big mess, when in fact, we’d be fin­ished by 3 o’clock the same day, only to have every­one go, “what?!”

[Shows clip from Maada­dayo]

KUROSAWA — Bat­tle scenes too. When the cav­al­ry makes a charge or something…we film it three times with three dif­fer­ent cam­eras, each time with dif­fer­ent lens­es. So in the end, we’ll have 9 cuts, and all you have to do is string togeth­er the good ones. It’s not that hard. Aside from that…when some­one falls off a horse…gets shot and falls of a horse… we’ll do a spe­cial take after­wards for those types of scenes. And all you have to do is throw that clip in at the right moment, and that’s it. [Pause] And…if you run out of cuts, just flip the film over…

[Takes a while to get it; Big Laugh]

KUROSAWA — Yeah, just flip it over and now the guy is run­ning from that side to this side. Hey, you’ll nev­er notice the dif­fer­ence.

MIYAZAKI — [Laugh­ing] Even if they’re car­ry­ing their swords on the wrong side? [Usu­al­ly, the left so they can draw it with their right hand]

KUROSAWA — No you won’t notice…because…it’s only when the guy falls off the horse. It’s real­ly absurd if you’re pay­ing close attention…with the sword on the wrong side and all. You should notice it, but…well…[Pause] you just don’t.

MIYAZAKI — [Laughs]

KUROSAWA — You know how Mifu­ne’s fight scenes are real­ly intense. Well one time, we were edit­ing one of those scenes and had to stop the reel because some­one came in to ask a ques­tion. And that’s when I hap­pened to look down at the film and notice that… he’s not vis­i­ble on the film itself.

MIYAZAKI — Huh…

KUROSAWA — He’s noth­ing but a blur on each of those frames…and you can’t real­ly see his face either. Only when you play back the film do you actu­al­ly see Mifu­ne in com­bat. That’s how fast he’s mov­ing. That’s why those fight scenes are so intense. Also, when you spend a lot of time edit­ing those scenes, you get the impres­sion that it’s going to be very lengthy, but no…it’s real­ly real­ly short. I’d say the film itself is about 20 feet…no more than 20 feet. Even then, I feel as though I’ve seen plen­ty, and that’s because I’m so ner­vous­ly focused onto the screen.

MIYAZAKI — [Say’s some­thing about the audi­ence’s per­cep­tion, but I’m not sure what he meant]

KUROSAWA — Right, right.

[Shows clip from Tsub­a­ki San­juro (1962)]

MIYAZAKI — Do you make these [sto­ry­board] draw­ings after you fin­ish writ­ing the script?

KUROSAWA — Most of them, yes…but there are a few that I draw while I’m still writ­ing the script. I’ll some­times come across old sketch­es on the back of an enve­lope or some­thing.

MIYAZAKI — [Look­ing at the draw­ings] Real­ly good.

KUROSAWA — Huh?

MIYAZAKI — You’re real­ly good

KUROSAWA — Huh?

MIYAZAKI — You are real­ly good [Laughs]

KUROSAWA — Nawww, I real­ly don’t think…

MIYAZAKI — You don’t think so? I…

KUROSAWA — Well the fun­ny thing is… I was sup­posed to be an artist when I was young. My dream was Paris — to open my own art shop. Mr. Ume­hara would always walk up and com­pli­ment my draw­ings when­ev­er I’d be paint­ing out­side. It was with his and Mr. Cardin’s sup­port that I even­tu­al­ly got the chance to put some of my draw­ings on dis­play at an art exhi­bi­tion over­seas. And to my sur­prise, I was lat­er invit­ed to give a talk at the Lou­vre Muse­um. “But sir, I’m not an artist!” was my response. So odd­ly enough…my dreams did come true.

MIYAZAKI — It sure did!

KUROSAWA — “Your style is real­ly inter­est­ing,” is what Mr. Ume­hara used to always say, and we won­dered why. Well, after much dis­cus­sion, we fig­ured out it’s because they [the paint­ings] aren’t intend­ed to be very high qual­i­ty paint­ings when I draw them. They’re just meant to give my staff a feel­ing for the scene, and noth­ing more, so they tend to be a lit­tle reck­less in style. There might be some that are draw sen­si­bly. It depends; I’ll draw with what­ev­er I have on me at that moment.

MIYAZAKI — [Flip­ping through more draw­ings] From the sound of your sto­ries, the live-action busi­ness sounds like a lot of fun.

KUROSAWA — Huh?

MIYAZAKI — Live-action sounds like a lot of fun. [Laughs]

KUROSAWA — It sure is. For exam­ple, if there’s going to be a film shoot the next day, I want to get out there as ear­ly as pos­si­ble. Though, my assis­tants prob­a­bly don’t like it when I come in ear­ly because they’d rather not have to deal with me. For them, a good day is one where I take my time com­ing into work. So a lot of the time, you’ll find me wait­ing impa­tient­ly at home.

MIYAZAKI — [Laughs]

KUROSAWA — Every­one has a lot of fun, real­ly. I always tell my peo­ple, “no mat­ter how gru­el­ing things may be at first, you’ll even­tu­al­ly start to enjoy it if you just keep at it. Once you reach that state, you’ll be putting in a lot of effort with­out evening know­ing it.” And it’s true. I might say “ok, that’s good enough,” but their response will be “just a second…one more thing” They’re that immersed in their work. Con­verse­ly, if you let things slide think­ing “well, this won’t be in view of the cam­era,” then there’s no end to how lazy you can get. You either give it your all, or don’t even both­er.

MIYAZAKI — [Laughs]

KUROSAWA — And some­times, ridicu­lous things hap­pen because of it. If you recall Hachi-gat­su no Rapu­so­di [Rhap­sody in August, 1991], there’s a field across the house. Well, long before any film­ing takes place, the first thing we do is ask the local farm­ers to plant the appro­pri­ate crops in each of the fields. You know, “pump­kin fields here…” and so forth. All this so that by the time we come back, all the crops will be ful­ly grown. You just can’t plant these things at the last moment and expect them to look nat­ur­al. Well one time, I look down on what was sup­posed to be a pump­kin patch and “wait a minute, these are gourds!”

MIYAZAKI — [Laughs] Mixed up the seeds did they?

KUROSAWA — “I told you, the gourd goes here on this shelf in the kitchen. The field out there is sup­posed to be pump­kin!” But in the end, we fig­ured that it would all get cov­ered with leaves, and that you would­n’t be able to tell the dif­fer­ence any­way. Peo­ple got the idea to claim their own gourd by writ­ing their name on it, so they could take one home after­wards, and make them into orna­ments or what­ev­er. They all grew up to be pret­ty big. So yeah, we had a big laugh over that — “what kind of fool plants gourds in a field?”

MIYAZAKI — When you’re recruit­ing your staff for a movie, do you just announce it and have peo­ple flock to you?

KUROSAWA — No… in my case, most of my staff mem­bers are peo­ple that I’ve worked with for a very long time. When I announce a new movie, it’s the usu­al gang that rush­es in to help. Oth­er­wise, I don’t think it would go so smooth­ly. “Man, have you lost a lot of hair.” That’s how long I’ve known some of the peo­ple. Like Takao Saito, our cam­era­man who I just refer to as Taka-bou (lit­tle Taka)…he’s already six­ty. It’s just that I’ve known him from when he was that lit­tle, and the name stuck through all these years.

MIYAZAKI — And the cam­era­man’s assistant…Taka-bou-san gets to pick?

KUROSAWA — Yes, he makes those deci­sions. So every­one works their way up the ranks. In that sense, peo­ple will gath­er around if I holler. You know, “we’re gonna start film­ing in how­ev­er many hours so have every­thing ready to go by then.” I’m pret­ty metic­u­lous when it comes to plan­ning and prepa­ra­tion, so I tend to spend more time than most. If the film­ing does­n’t go smooth­ly, it’s usu­al­ly because you did­n’t spend enough time get­ting every­thing ready. You do your home­work, and every­thing goes smooth­ly.

MIYAZAKI — In the old days when movie stu­dios were in much bet­ter shape, we could afford to put up a fight against movie com­pa­nies. That is, even if we went over-budget…even if we did­n’t get along at all, we could still man­age to squeeze the fund­ing out of them to make movies.

KUROSAWA — That was exact­ly what hap­pened when we were work­ing on Sev­en Samu­rai. It was tak­ing a whole lot longer than it was sup­posed to. So much so that we were expect­ing them to cut us off at any moment. In fact, we had­n’t filmed a sin­gle scene from the last bat­tle because of it. And just as we expect­ed, we had a few vis­i­tors come in from Toho: “We’d like to see what you have so far.” “But sir, we haven’t filmed the most impor­tant part of the movie.” “I don’t care; just show us what you have.” “Sir, it’s already Feb­ru­ary. If it starts snow­ing now, we’ll be in big trou­ble when it comes to film­ing the rest of the movie. Are you sure about this?” “Yes, let’s see it.” So we spent an entire week edit­ing what we had of the film so far. And we showed it to them, up towards the end, where Kikuchiyo runs up the roof where the flag is…you know, “ta ta ta tee ta ta ta…[flutter] [flut­ter]” right? “[Points] There they come there they come!” and then…blank, goes the screen.

MIYAZAKI — [Laugh­ing]

KUROSAWA — “[With a con­fused and impa­tient look] so what hap­pens next…?” “We told you, we don’t have a sin­gle scene filmed for the rest of the movie.” So they all gath­ered around…mumbled some­thing and then came back to us and said “Go ahead, film what­ev­er you need…please.”

MIYAZAKI — [Laughs]

KUROSAWA — And that’s when it start­ed snow­ing. We all yelled, “Told you so! That’s what you get!” and then pro­ceed­ed to have big binge back at my place lat­er that night.

MIYAZAKI — [Laughs]

KUROSAWA — As luck would have it, it snowed pret­ty heav­i­ly that night. We had to bring in the fire depart­ment and spend an entire week melt­ing all that snow. Melt­ing the snow over an area that used to be rice pad­dies to begin with… the muck was unbe­liev­able. That might be part of the rea­son why those scenes were so dynam­ic.

MIYAZAKI — Indeed! [Laughs]

[Shows clip from Sev­en Samu­rai]

KUROSAWA — You know, I real­ly liked that bus in Totoro.

MIYAZAKI — [Glee­ful­ly] Thank you.

[Miyaza­ki seems to be at a loss for words here]

KUROSAWA — Those are the kinds of things that peo­ple like me in this busi­ness can’t do, and that’s some­thing I’m real­ly envi­ous about.

MIYAZAKI — The thing is, I grew up in the city… in a time right after the war…when my only per­cep­tion of Japan was that it was an impov­er­ished and piti­ful­ly hope­less coun­try. [Laughs]. At least that’s what we were always told. It was only after I went over­seas for the first time that I start­ed appre­ci­at­ing Japan’s nat­ur­al envi­ron­ment. That being the case, it’s fun­ny that I keep want­i­ng to make movies with a for­eign [western/European] set­ting. I made Totoro because I felt the need to make a movie that takes place in Japan.

[Shows the Mei-bound Cat­bus scene from Tonari no Totoro (1988)]

MIYAZAKI — Late­ly, I’ve been want­i­ng to make a Jidai-geki [peri­od dra­mas]. Man is it hard! I don’t even know what to do!

KUROSAWA — What I think is real­ly inter­est­ing about the Sen­goku-era [1467–1567] is that…it’s per­ceived to be a time when, for exam­ple, one had to be loy­al to his lord and obey sim­i­lar moral and eth­i­cal codes. But in actu­al­i­ty, those only came into exis­tence dur­ing the Toku­gawa Shogu­nate [Edo-era; approx­i­mate­ly 1603–1867] as an attempt to main­tain some degree of order [and peace for the Toku­gawa fam­i­ly]. The Sen­goku-era, on the oth­er hand, was quite the oppo­site — peo­ple had a lot of free­dom then.

[The word KUROSAWA — uses next is ambigu­ous; “shu­jin” can either mean man of the house (hus­band) or land­lord; below are two plau­si­ble trans­la­tions based on these two dif­fer­ent def­i­n­i­tions]

KUROSAWA — (first trans­la­tion): “This hus­band of mine…he’s no good.” If that’s what she thought, then she would’ve, you know… [walked out on him]…without so much as a sec­ond thought.

KUROSAWA — (sec­ond trans­la­tion): “Our landlord…he’s no good.” If that’s what they thought, then they would’ve, you know…[revolted]…without so much as a sec­ond thought.

MIYAZAKI — [Laughs]

KUROSAWA — And that’s the kind of envi­ron­ment that spawned peo­ple like Hideyoshi [1536–1598]. They’re free-thinkers. “You must be loy­al to your hus­band” — that was­n’t the case then. If he was­n’t wor­thy, then you could just aban­don him. That’s what it was like. I think it would be real­ly inter­est­ing if you could por­tray that.

MIYAZAKI — Hmm…

KUROSAWA — Shake­speare might be unique­ly British, but actually…Japan did have peo­ple like Mac­beth dur­ing that era. You’d be sur­prised how eas­i­ly you could make a Japan­ese sto­ry that par­al­lels some­thing out of Shake­speare. Yeah, why don’t you do a Japan­ese Shake­speare­an Jidai-geki? There are a lot of good sto­ries.

MIYAZAKI — [Pause, per­plexed laugh]

KUROSAWA — Yeah?

MIYAZAKI — Well, let’s start with what they ate…what they wore.

KUROSAWA — We do have records of those…like menus

MIYAZAKI — What about the Muro­machi-era [encom­pass­es the Sen­goku-era, also known as the Ashik­a­ga-era; 1333–1573]

KUROSAWA — Muro­machi is…a good peri­od.

MIYAZAKI — It gets a lit­tle fuzzy in the Nan­boku-cho [ear­ly years; 1336–1392]. That and the Tai­hei­ki [col­lec­tion of war tales]…everything becomes a big mess.

KUROSAWA — Yeah, it gets more dif­fi­cult the fur­ther back you go. If it’s the Tale of the Heike [Part of the Tai­hei­ki], then we have good records of those.

MIYAZAKI — The utter dev­as­ta­tion of Kyoto towards the end of the Heian-era [794‑1185], as depict­ed in the Hou­jou­ki [Tale of the Ten-Foot Square Hut] — earth­quakes, great fires, dead bod­ies everywhere…rushing back from Fukuhara [mod­ern day Kobe area] only to find your estate in com­plete ruins…

KUROSAWA — You mean Rashomon’s time peri­od. That’s inter­est­ing too.

MIYAZAKI — Watch­ing it as a kid, I remem­ber it being a real­ly scary movie! [Laughs]. For me, the movies that stay on my mind aren’t the uplift­ing ones, but rather the ones that depict the real­i­ties of sur­vival.

KUROSAWA — Aku­ta­gawa-san has a lot of nov­els [aside from Rashomon] that depict that time peri­od. Remem­ber that the Rashomon writ­ten by him is com­plete­ly dif­fer­ent from Yabu no Naka [from which the movie was orig­i­nal­ly adapt­ed] — remem­ber the old lady upstairs who’s steal­ing the hair from the corpse?

MIYAZAKI — Right, right.

MIYAZAKI — It seems as if movies these days don’t deal with as wide of a time frame as they used to.

KUROSAWA — Yes, and that’s because…well first of all, even if you want­ed to make a movie of that era, you’d have a lot of trou­ble find­ing a good film­ing loca­tion.

MIYAZAKI — That’s very true. Pow­er lines every­where! [Laughs].

KUROSAWA — Places like the Ikaru­ga no Miya Palace [7th cen­tu­ry] were built in the mid­dle of a cedar for­est. Those trees were huge [Ges­tures] and that’s why they could man­age to build such a wood­en struc­ture. Nowa­days, there’s not a sin­gle one left! That’s how much things have changed.

MIYAZAKI — [Nod­ding] Yes…yes.

KUROSAWA — For Maada­dayo (1993), we had access to many of the clothes from that era [1940s]…like suites. But if you and I try to wear them, they won’t fit at all; we’ve got­ten big­ger.

MIYAZAKI — Oh I see.

KUROSAWA — But if you look at the armor from the Bat­tle of Oke­haza­ma [1560], or some­thing, they’re notice­ably big­ger. Clothes from the Sen­goku-era are big.

MIYAZAKI — [Laughs] Are you say­ing that we got small­er dur­ing the Edo-era [1603–1867]?

KUROSAWA — [Nod] Our physique undoubt­ed­ly dete­ri­o­rat­ed dur­ing the 300 years under Toku­gawa. At first, I did­n’t think such a dras­tic change was rea­son­able, or even pos­si­ble. But when you look at the clothes from the ear­ly Showa-era [pre WWII] and com­pare it to those of today…in just 40 years, look at how much we’ve changed. They just don’t fit!

MIYAZAKI — [Laughs]

KUROSAWA — So we had to find fab­ric that matched the orig­i­nal and tai­lor new ones based on that. It was a big has­sle.

MIYAZAKI — When it comes to mak­ing a Jidai-geki, I just keep run­ning in circles…and nev­er actu­al­ly come close to real­iz­ing that goal. Peo­ple ask, “so what’s your next project?” to which I’ll respond, “Jidai-geki!” I’ve been say­ing that for the past 10 years! [Laughs]

KUROSAWA — In Sev­en Samu­rai, we were orig­i­nal­ly going to chron­i­cle the every­day life of a par­tic­u­lar samu­rai. And as you men­tioned earlier…he’ll wake up in the morn­ing, eat some­thing for break­fast, per­haps go to the Edo Castle…but what exact­ly would he do there, and what would he do for lunch? We don’t know any of the details. There’s no way we can write a script like that.

MIYAZAKI — Right…right.

KUROSAWA — It’s actu­al­ly eas­i­er to find ear­li­er writ­ten records than it is to find those of the Edo-era. We did a lot of research, and that’s when we came across an account of a vil­lage hir­ing samu­rais to become the only vil­lage spared from rebel attacks. “Hey, let’s do this.” And that’s how it start­ed. Of course, once we got to work on it, we just let our imag­i­na­tion run wild. Our pro­duc­er asked, “what about the title?” and I said, “well, it’s about sev­en samurai…hey, that’s per­fect!” “We’re going with this, no mat­ter what!”

MIYAZAKI — That’s true! Movies that don’t have a fit­ting title are no good. [Laughs]

KUROSAWA — That’s very true. Although… we had a lot of trou­ble nam­ing this one [Maada­dayo].

MIYAZAKI — Oh real­ly? [Laughs]

KUROSAWA — They were all too awk­ward sound­ing. Every day, I’d rack my brain over a title to the point where one day, I just blurt­ed out “Maada­dayo! [Not yet!]” My son said “hey, that works!” so we knew it was a keep­er.

[Shows clip from Maada­dayo]

[End chat]

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Aki­ra Kuro­sawa & Gabriel Gar­cía Márquez Talk About Film­mak­ing (and Nuclear Bombs) in Six Hour Inter­view

Aki­ra Kurosawa’s Advice to Aspir­ing Film­mak­ers: Write, Write, Write and Read

When Aki­ra Kuro­sawa Watched Solaris with Andrei Tarkovsky: I Was “Very Hap­py to Find Myself Liv­ing on Earth”

Watch Moe­bius and Miyaza­ki, Two of the Most Imag­i­na­tive Artists, in Con­ver­sa­tion (2004)

Watch Hayao Miyaza­ki Ani­mate the Final Shot of His Final Fea­ture Film, The Wind Ris­es

How to Make Instant Ramen Com­pli­ments of Japan­ese Ani­ma­tion Direc­tor Hayao Miyaza­ki

Based in Seoul, Col­in Mar­shall writes and broad­casts on cities and cul­ture. He’s at work on a book about Los Ange­les, A Los Ange­les Primer, the video series The City in Cin­e­ma, the crowd­fund­ed jour­nal­ism project Where Is the City of the Future?, and the Los Ange­les Review of Books’ Korea Blog. Fol­low him on Twit­ter at @colinmarshall or on Face­book.

375+ Episodes of William F. Buckley’s Firing Line Now Online: Features Talks with Chomsky, Borges, Kerouac, Ginsberg & More

On most issues, I’m clear about where I stand and why, and I used to find it enlight­en­ing to debate informed peo­ple who felt strong­ly about oppos­ing posi­tions. Some­times we would get each oth­er to budge a lit­tle bit, or—at the very least—sharpen the artic­u­la­tion of our views. These days, I often find myself in echo cham­bers, preach­ing to choirs, and oth­er clichés about epis­temic clo­sure. It’s a sit­u­a­tion that alarms me, and yet I find even more alarm­ing the lev­els of cyn­i­cism, invec­tive, bad faith, threats, and mis­in­for­ma­tion that per­vade so much par­ti­san debate.

I know I’m not alone in this lament. What we’ve lost—among oth­er human­ist virtues—is what philoso­phers and rhetori­cians call the “prin­ci­ple of char­i­ty,” gen­er­al­ly defined as mak­ing the clear­est, most intel­lec­tu­al­ly hon­est inter­pre­ta­tion we can of an opponent’s views and argu­ing against them on those mer­its. The prin­ci­ple of char­i­ty allows us to have civ­il dis­agree­ments with peo­ple whose ethics we may dis­like, and it there­by fur­thers dis­cus­sion rather than sti­fles it.

We may all have our own sto­ry about who is to blame for the break­down of the dis­course, but before we start yelling at each oth­er all over again, we could per­haps take some time to learn from exam­ples of polit­i­cal debate done well. One long-run­ning exam­ple involves a fig­ure whose views I’ve usu­al­ly found abhor­rent (and some of which he him­self lat­er called “rep­re­hen­si­ble”), but whose abil­i­ty to defend them in char­i­ta­ble spar­ring match­es with peo­ple from every pos­si­ble place on the spec­trum (or horse­shoe), I’ve found very com­pelling.

I write here of William F. Buck­ley, the well-heeled, Ivy League-edu­cat­ed (many have said elit­ist) founder of the Nation­al Review. What­ev­er per­son­al strengths or flaws we wish to ascribe to Buck­ley, we should agree on a few facts: Dur­ing his tenure as the host of Fir­ing Line—an often oppo­si­tion­al inter­view pro­gram in which Buck­ley chat­ted up con­ser­v­a­tive fel­low trav­el­ers and sparred with left­ist intel­lec­tu­als, artists, and activists—we see over and over again that he made an effort to actu­al­ly read his oppo­nents’ views first­hand; to clar­i­fy his under­stand­ing of them; and to base his dis­agree­ment on the the argu­ments rather than the real or imag­ined moti­va­tions of the mes­sen­ger.

Over 375 episodes of Fir­ing Line have been made avail­able on YouTube by the Hoover Insti­tu­tion at Stan­ford Uni­ver­si­ty. You can find com­plete episodes on Hoover’s YouTube chan­nel here (there are prob­a­bly more to come), and see their web site for an archive of full pro­grams and tran­scripts avail­able online.

Buck­ley did­n’t always engage in rea­soned debate: he issued many ugly per­son­al and racial attacks in print. He threat­ened to punch both Gore Vidal and Noam Chom­sky (jok­ing­ly, per­haps). But Fir­ing Line wasn’t only about its host: its suc­cess depend­ed also on the for­mat, the audi­ence, and the qual­i­ty of the dis­cus­sion and the guests. Take the few exam­ples here. At the top of the post, Buck­ley dis­cuss­es the Viet­nam War with Chom­sky. The lat­ter may be inca­pable of rais­ing his voice, but notice also Buckley’s cool exte­ri­or. While his gen­teel man­ner­isms rubbed many the wrong way, whether or not we like his demeanor, he con­sis­tent­ly employs meth­ods of clar­i­fi­ca­tion and argu­men­ta­tion rather than per­son­al attack (stray threats of punch­ing aside).

Nowhere in evi­dence is the cur­rent style of scream­ing over guests with whom the host dis­agrees. We find  sim­i­lar recep­tive­ness in Buck­ley’s inter­view with Allen Gins­berg, and even with Black Pan­ther Eldridge Cleaver, whom Buck­ley obvi­ous finds dis­taste­ful, and whose vio­lent rhetoric and vio­lent past may war­rant the reac­tion in many peo­ple’s esti­ma­tion. Nev­er­the­less, even in this extreme case, we see how the dis­cus­sion tracks along in such a way that view­ers actu­al­ly learn some­thing about the views on offer. Some may be unable to coun­te­nance either par­tic­i­pan­t’s ideas, and yet may come still away from the exchange exam­in­ing the basis of their own posi­tion.

Buck­ley didn’t only debate pol­i­tics. As in his inter­view with Gins­berg, many of his foils were lit­er­ary fig­ures, and many of them pri­mar­i­ly dis­cussed writ­ing. Fir­ing Line brought us great tele­vi­sion like the dis­cus­sions fur­ther up with Jorge Luis Borges, with Eudo­ra Wel­ty and Walk­er Per­cy above, and, below, with Nor­man Mail­er. The show ran from 1966 to 1999 and owed much of its pres­tige to the two pub­lic tele­vi­sion stations—from New Jer­sey and South Car­oli­na, respectively—who host­ed it and allowed for its rar­i­fied audi­ence.

Though it may not have been wide­ly viewed, Fir­ing Line’s influ­ence res­onat­ed wide­ly in its impact on oth­er cul­tur­al fig­ures and venues. Grant­ed, we see Buck­ley’s bias­es on dis­play. Make what you will of the fact that—although the peri­od of the show’s air­ing saw at least two waves of feminism—Buckley rarely inter­viewed women unless they already agreed with him. On the whole, how­ev­er, through­out the show’s 33-year run its host lis­tened to, engaged hon­est­ly with, and attempt­ed to under­stand oth­er points of view.

h/t Emer­son

Relat­ed Con­tent:

James Bald­win Bests William F. Buck­ley in 1965 Debate at Cam­bridge Uni­ver­si­ty

William F. Buck­ley Flogged Him­self to Get Through Atlas Shrugged

William F. Buck­ley v. Gore Vidal – 1968

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

The Velvet Underground’s John Cale Plays Erik Satie’s Vexations on I’ve Got a Secret (1963)

Few of us today, in search of uncon­ven­tion­al artistry, would imag­ine mid-20th-cen­tu­ry CBS game shows as a promis­ing resource. But look­ing back, it turns out that Amer­i­can tele­vi­sion of that era — a time and place when more peo­ple were exposed to the very same media than any before or since — man­aged to bring a sur­pris­ing num­ber of gen­uine cre­ators before its main­stream-of-the-main­stream audi­ence. In 1960, for instance, exper­i­men­tal com­pos­er John Cage per­formed Water Walk, his piece for a bath­tub, pitch­er, and ice cubes, on I’ve Got a Secret.

Three years lat­er, Cage’s near-name­sake John Cale took the show’s stage to play Erik Satie’s “melan­cholic yet dead­pan, eccle­si­as­ti­cal yet demon­ic” Vex­a­tions. Though Cage did­n’t make a reap­pear­ance for the occa­sion, he did have a con­nec­tion to the music itself.

Dat­ing to 1893 or 1894 and unpub­lished dur­ing Satie’s life­time, Vex­a­tions’ score con­tains a note from the com­pos­er: “Pour se jouer 840 fois de suite ce motif, il sera bon de se pré­par­er au préal­able, et dans le plus grand silence, par des immo­bil­ités sérieuses,” tak­en by the piece’s inter­preters to mean that they should play it 840 times in a row.

Or at least that’s how Cage and col­lab­o­ra­tor Lewis Lloyd inter­pret­ed it when they staged its first pub­lic per­for­mance in 1963 at the Pock­et The­atre in Man­hat­tan. Its rotat­ing ros­ter of play­ers, under the ban­ner of the Pock­et The­atre Piano Relay Team, includ­ed a 21-year-old Cale. One week lat­er on I’ve Got a Secret, the young Welsh­man’s par­tic­i­pa­tion in this dar­ing per­for­mance con­sti­tut­ed the secret the play­ers had to guess. Hav­ing deter­mined that his achieve­ment has some­thing to do with music, one lady asks the crit­i­cal ques­tion: “Does it have any­thing to do with endurance?”

Yes, replies Cale, although the episode’s oth­er secret-bear­er, Karl Schen­z­er of the Liv­ing The­ater, may have per­formed the real act of endurance as the sole audi­ence mem­ber who stayed to watch the whole eigh­teen hours and forty min­utes. (He cer­tain­ly got a deal: Cage, believ­ing that “the more art you con­sume, the less it should cost,” gave each audi­ence mem­ber a five-cent refund for every twen­ty min­utes they stayed.) I’ve Got a Secret’s home view­ers then saw and heard Cale play Vex­a­tions, or at least 1/840th of it. They would hear from him again in his capac­i­ty as a found­ing mem­ber of the Vel­vet Under­ground — a band some of them would learn about a cou­ple years lat­er on the very same net­work’s Evening News with Wal­ter Cronkite.

If you would like to sign up for Open Culture’s free email newslet­ter, please find it here. It’s a great way to see our new posts, all bun­dled in one email, each day.

If you would like to sup­port the mis­sion of Open Cul­ture, con­sid­er mak­ing a dona­tion to our site. It’s hard to rely 100% on ads, and your con­tri­bu­tions will help us con­tin­ue pro­vid­ing the best free cul­tur­al and edu­ca­tion­al mate­ri­als to learn­ers every­where. You can con­tribute through Pay­Pal, Patre­on, and Ven­mo (@openculture). Thanks!

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Nico, Lou Reed & John Cale Sing the Clas­sic Vel­vet Under­ground Song ‘Femme Fatale’ (Paris, 1972)

Lou Reed, John Cale & Nico Reunite, Play Acoustic Vel­vet Under­ground Songs on French TV, 1972

Watch William S. Bur­roughs’ Ah Pook is Here as an Ani­mat­ed Film, with Music By John Cale

John Cage Per­forms Water Walk on US Game Show I’ve Got a Secret (1960)

A Son­ic Intro­duc­tion to Avant-Garde Music: Stream 145 Min­utes of 20th Cen­tu­ry Art Music, Includ­ing Mod­ernism, Futur­ism, Dadaism & Beyond

Based in Seoul, Col­in Mar­shall writes and broad­casts on cities and cul­ture. He’s at work on a book about Los Ange­les, A Los Ange­les Primer, the video series The City in Cin­e­ma, the crowd­fund­ed jour­nal­ism project Where Is the City of the Future?, and the Los Ange­les Review of Books’ Korea Blog. Fol­low him on Twit­ter at @colinmarshall or on Face­book.

Abstract: Netflix’s New Documentary Series About “the Art of Design” Premieres Today

All over the world, so many kids grow­ing up, stu­dents look­ing for a major, and even adults angling for a career change say they want to get into “design.” But what do they mean? The word encom­pass­es a bewil­der­ing­ly wide (and ever-expand­ing) range of dis­ci­plines, respect­ed and expe­ri­enced prac­ti­tion­ers of eight of which the new Net­flix doc­u­men­tary series Abstract takes as its sub­jects: archi­tect Bjarke Ingels, illus­tra­tor Christoph Nie­mann, inte­ri­or design­er Ilse Craw­ford, stage design­er Es Devlin, graph­ic design­er Paula Sch­er, pho­tog­ra­ph­er Pla­ton, auto­mo­bile design­er Ralph Gilles, and shoe design­er Tin­ker Hat­field.

“I can guess what you’re think­ing, because I have watched a lot of design doc­u­men­taries,” writes Abstract cre­ator (and WIRED edi­tor-in-chief) Scott Dadich. “Restrained, pol­ished, pret­ty — so many of them look like a mov­ing ver­sion of a cof­fee table book. You’ve got soft­ly lit inter­views, eso­teric con­ver­sa­tions, and sub­tle track­ing shots of wide land­scapes beneath unob­tru­sive music. Most of it is clean, min­i­mal, and bor­ing as hell.”

Instead, he and his col­lab­o­ra­tors have matched each of the design­ers this series pro­files with a dif­fer­ent doc­u­men­tar­i­an with their own dis­tinct style: the direc­to­r­i­al ros­ter includes Mor­gan Neville (who made Best of Ene­mies, the recent doc­u­men­tary on Gore Vidal and William F. Buck­ley) and Bri­an Oakes (direc­tor of Jim: The James Foley Sto­ry).

Indiewire’s Liz Shan­non Miller describes the series as doc­u­ment­ing, among oth­er things, the work­spaces of these design­ers in a kind of detail “on the lev­el of MTV’s Cribs.” Though “per­son­al lives are kept rel­a­tive­ly out of the pic­ture, Abstract man­ages to get sur­pris­ing­ly inti­mate with the cre­ators at its cen­ter.” You can get a taste of that from the clip just above of Ingels’ episode in which he explains what his team want­ed to do with the game of “urban Tetris” that was build­ing the VM Hous­es in Copen­hagen. “It cre­at­ed a lot of noise,” he says of the hous­ing pro­jec­t’s dar­ing design, one that still catch­es the atten­tion of passers­by today.

All of Abstract’s episodes come out today, but before you binge on them (and if you don’t have a Net­flix mem­ber­ship, you can always sign up for their free one-month tri­al), you can read this Archi­tec­tur­al Digest inter­view on it with Ingels and Neville. “This show is about peo­ple who are intense­ly curi­ous and try­ing to under­stand, in a very prac­ti­cal way, how to make the world we live in a bet­ter place, whether it’s a more com­fort­able place or a more effi­cient place or a more egal­i­tar­i­an place,” says Neville. And what does that require? “Under­stand­ing that life is always evolv­ing, the world is always evolv­ing, and that means that yesterday’s answers might be the answers to a dif­fer­ent ques­tion than what the ques­tion is today,” says Ingels. “So it always starts with ask­ing ques­tions and refram­ing the ques­tion” — and of course, as you’ll wit­ness count­less times through­out the length of the show, ven­tur­ing an answer.

Abstract is a Rad­i­cal­Me­dia pro­duc­tion made in asso­ci­a­tion with Tremo­lo Pro­duc­tions. It was exec­u­tive pro­duced by Mor­gan Neville, Scott Dadich (Edi­tor in Chief of WIRED), and Dave O’Connor, Jon Kamen and Justin Wilkes.

via Kot­tke

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Pao­la Antonel­li on Design as the Inter­face Between Progress and Human­i­ty

Saul Bass’ Oscar-Win­ning Ani­mat­ed Short Pon­ders Why Man Cre­ates

Saul Bass’ Advice for Design­ers: Make Some­thing Beau­ti­ful and Don’t Wor­ry About the Mon­ey

Pow­ers of Ten: The 1968 Doc­u­men­tary by Leg­endary Design­ers Ray and Charles Eames

Sketch­es of Artists by the Late New Media Design­er Hill­man Cur­tis

Based in Seoul, Col­in Mar­shall writes and broad­casts on cities and cul­ture. He’s at work on a book about Los Ange­les, A Los Ange­les Primer, the video series The City in Cin­e­ma, the crowd­fund­ed jour­nal­ism project Where Is the City of the Future?, and the Los Ange­les Review of Books’ Korea Blog. Fol­low him on Twit­ter at @colinmarshall or on Face­book.

David Foster Wallace on What’s Wrong with Postmodernism: A Video Essay

“We live in a night­mare that David Fos­ter Wal­lace had in 1994,” said a tweet that put me in stitch­es last sum­mer, but I have a sense that we’ve only sunk deep­er into that hyper­ver­bal, media-obsessed, and deeply fear­ful nov­el­ist’s bad dreams since then. “The Amer­i­can writer in the mid­dle of the 20th cen­tu­ry has his hands full in try­ing to under­stand, and then describe, and then make cred­i­ble much of the Amer­i­can real­i­ty,” Philip Roth argued 55 years ago. “The actu­al­i­ty is con­tin­u­al­ly out­do­ing our tal­ents.” Now, at the begin­ning of the 21st, that actu­al­i­ty out­does not just what the com­par­a­tive­ly tra­di­tion­al Roth could come up with, but even any­thing imag­in­able by Wal­lace’s heirs in the form-break­ing, extrem­i­ty-ori­ent­ed realm of “post­mod­ernism.”

But did Wal­lace con­sid­er him­self post­mod­ernist? Asked by Char­lie Rose in a 1997 inter­view what “post­mod­ernism means in lit­er­a­ture,” he at first replied only that it means “after mod­ernism.” But soon he got into the broad­er cul­tur­al cri­tique for which he’s now remem­bered: “Post­mod­ernism has, to a large extent, run its course,” despite hav­ing made the con­sid­er­able inno­va­tion of pre­sent­ing “the first text that was high­ly self-con­scious, self-con­scious of itself as text, self-con­scious of the writer as per­sona, self-con­scious about the effects that nar­ra­tive had on read­ers and the fact that the read­ers prob­a­bly knew that.” Decades lat­er, Wal­lace saw that “a lot of the schticks of post-mod­ernism — irony, cyn­i­cism, irrev­er­ence — are now part of what­ev­er it is that’s ener­vat­ing in the cul­ture itself.”

“The Prob­lem with Irony,” Will Schoder’s video essay above, draws on Wal­lace’s inter­view with Rose and much oth­er tele­vi­su­al mate­r­i­al besides. That focus may seem slight­ly quaint in the inter­net age, but Wal­lace, a self-con­fessed tele­vi­sion addict who wrote a thou­sand-page nov­el about a video­tape so enter­tain­ing that it kills, looked into the screen and saw a real and pow­er­ful threat. “Irony, pok­er-faced silence, and fear of ridicule are dis­tinc­tive of those fea­tures of con­tem­po­rary U.S. cul­ture (of which cut­ting-edge fic­tion is a part) that enjoy any sig­nif­i­cant rela­tion to the tele­vi­sion whose weird pret­ty hand has my gen­er­a­tion by the throat,” he wrote in the 1993 essay “E Unibus Plu­ram,” blam­ing those qual­i­ties for “a great despair and sta­sis in U.S. cul­ture.”

Even as “a cer­tain sub­genre of pop-con­scious post­mod­ern fic­tion, writ­ten most­ly by young Amer­i­cans, has late­ly arisen and made a real attempt to trans­fig­ure a world of and for appear­ance, mass appeal, and tele­vi­sion [ … ] tele­vi­su­al cul­ture has some­how evolved to a point where it seems invul­ner­a­ble to any such trans­fig­ur­ing assault.” But as that cul­ture moved on from the likes of David Let­ter­man (to Wal­lace’s mind, “the iron­ic eight­ies’ true Angel of Death”) and Sein­feld to those of Jon Stew­art and Com­mu­ni­ty, Schold­er argues, its atti­tudes de-ironized some­what: “The best shows of our age aren’t find­ing humor in the gaps that have devel­oped between peo­ple. They find humor in the absurd and awk­ward attempts by peo­ple try­ing to bridge those gaps. They want to show us that humans can have real con­nec­tions and sin­cer­i­ty for each oth­er.”

And yet human­i­ty’s pas­siv­i­ty remains wor­ri­some. “Today, the aver­age week­ly screen time for an Amer­i­can adult – brace your­self; this is not a typo – is 74 hours (and still going up),” writes Andrew Post­man, son of media the­o­rist and Amus­ing Our­selves to Death author Neil Post­man, in a Guardian piece just last week. “We watch when we want, not when any­one tells us, and usu­al­ly alone, and often while doing sev­er­al oth­er things. The sound­bite has been replaced by viral­i­ty, meme, hot take, tweet.” Post­man includes Wal­lace with his father in the group of observers who “warned of what was com­ing”: a time when few can be shocked by, among oth­er cur­rent phe­nom­e­na, “the rise of a real­i­ty TV star, a man giv­en to loud, inflam­ma­to­ry state­ments, many of which are spec­tac­u­lar­ly untrue but vir­tu­al­ly all of which make for what used to be called ‘good tele­vi­sion.’ ” Stay tuned, if you must.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

30 Free Essays & Sto­ries by David Fos­ter Wal­lace on the Web

David Fos­ter Wal­lace: The Big, Uncut Inter­view (2003)

David Fos­ter Wal­lace Talks About Lit­er­a­ture (and More) in an Inter­net Cha­t­room: Read the 1996 Tran­script

Ani­ma­tions Revive Lost Inter­views with David Fos­ter Wal­lace, Jim Mor­ri­son & Dave Brubeck

David Fos­ter Wal­lace Sub­scribes to the The Believ­er Mag­a­zine with a Lit­tle Humor & Snark (2003)

Noam Chom­sky Calls Post­mod­ern Cri­tiques of Sci­ence Over-Inflat­ed “Poly­syl­lab­ic Tru­isms”

Based in Seoul, Col­in Mar­shall writes and broad­casts on cities and cul­ture. He’s at work on a book about Los Ange­les, A Los Ange­les Primer, the video series The City in Cin­e­ma, the crowd­fund­ed jour­nal­ism project Where Is the City of the Future?, and the Los Ange­les Review of Books’ Korea Blog. Fol­low him on Twit­ter at @colinmarshall or on Face­book.

« Go BackMore in this category... »
Quantcast