Cute Literary Anecdote

Nabokov worked on the screenplay of Lolita in California.

At his first cocktail party, at producer David Selznick’s, Nabokov met a rangy, craggy-looking man sporting a deep suntan. “And what do you do?” he asked. “I’m in pictures,” John Wayne modestly replied. At another party Nabokov met an attractive brunette to whom he spoke French, and told her she had a wonderful Paris accent. “Parisian, hell,” Gina Lollabrigida replied. “It’s Roman French.”

Ha!

He did not always put his foot in it — at one party Marilyn Monroe took quite a liking to him — but conscious of being out of step, he soon dropped out of the cocktail party circuit.


From Brian Boyd’s Vladimir Nabokov: The America Years

Superherology

Keith Olbermann just mentioned Barack Obama’s Spider-Man collection.

My mother: “Who’s Spider-Man? He’s not Batman, is he?”

Me: “…”

My mother: “Batman’s the mentally sick one.”

Me: “Spider-Man’s more downtrodden. It’s hard for him to be a good nephew and husband when he’s fighting supervillains.”

My mother: “He’s Silver Age, isn’t he?”

Me: “Wow. How do you know about Silver Age?”

My mother: “That’s a bit condescending.”

I just won $827,000

According to my email from Mrs. Helen Anderson of the United Kingdom. It reads:

The Sum Of £500,000 Pounds has been won by your EMAIL Address in our UK Online Promo. Do get back to this office with your claims requirement such as

1.Name
2.Address
3.Nationality
4.Age
5.Sex
6.Occupation
7.Phone/Fax
8.Present Country

Sincerely
Mrs. Helen Anderson

I like that it says “Do get back.” That’s the British touch.

K.O.ed

I’m going on vacation, and before that I’ve got to finish up a bunch of things, the upshot of all of which is that I will probably be out of action the next couple of weeks or so, at least as far as new content goes. But I’ll be back after the 4th. In the meantime, Cerusee and Tom and Miriam will keep you supplied with new bloggy goodness….

That goddamn Woody Allen

His latest movie, Whatever Works, stars Larry David (b. 1947) and Evan Rachel Wood (b. 1987). Slate says the romance between their characters is “weirdly” asexual. No, Slate, not “weirdly.” It is thankfully asexual. Thank God that age and nature have finally placed some limit to Woody Allen’s monstrous vanity.

I was going to write about Woody Allen for my Fandom Confessions contribution (the roundtable’s last entry is here). But I couldn’t. I hate him so much that my engine flooded. It’s complicated and has to do with my own life choices and so on, but he is one of the few celebrities I personally hate. It’s not the Soon-Yi business — that came well after I turned against him. More like the Soon-Yi business grew from the same traits that show up in his movies. Skill he’s got, he knows how to put together a smart-looking film, but he is so shallow and self-absorbed that he has nothing to say. Yet he keeps talking, and people think he’s serious because he takes himself seriously. People think he’s funny because he uses that damn hesitation stammer and pushes his glasses up the bridge of his nose. People think … well, people don’t think. The movie’s playing at a theater with a little screen, so they figure it must be art. The movie ends before they get bored, so they figure it must be good.

In reviewing J. M. DeMatteis’s long-lost Jewish vampire story (h/t Miriam), Kristy Valenti mentions “the stereotype about what is bad in some of Allen’s films — a successful neurotic with an attractive mate who is inexorably drawn to a fresh young woman who makes him feel sexy.” Her phrasing implies that nothing else is bad about Woody Allen movies. As you may have noticed, I disagree. He has no imagination, no understanding of people, no feel for how they talk and behave. He keeps doing the same tricks over and over, and he trots out his cultural enthusiasms like a kid during freshman orientation week. Wow, Satchell Paige, “The Potatohead Blues,” Dostoevsky, Fred Astaire! And what was your SAT score?

His geezer-chick leanings disgust me not because I’m against matchups of that kind — like most geezers, I find much to recommend them — but because his geezers are so condescending toward their girls and because Allen doesn’t realize the matchups are unlikely. Sure, a young, beautiful girl wants to spend her time with a whiney fart whose neck is falling down, especially if the fart is not a millionaire or a brand-name film director. Allen thinks his stand-ins are entitled, and he thinks the girls are prizes to be awarded. The bigger the age difference, the more shocking the implied vanity. Now we have reached a difference of 40 years, and at least the old guy will keep his hands off the girl. But she still has to listen to him.

1959: Year of Little Rationale

My mother did the index for the new book 1959: The Year Everything Changed and thought it was a bit lacking in purpose. The author gives his mission statement in the form of a Slate column and does a good job reminding us that the years just before “the Sixties” were indeed full of change and portent. He doesn’t get into why 1959 should be his focus, as opposed to 1958 or 1961 or any other year out of that batch. Maybe they also had some amazing did-you-know firsts and breakthroughs, maybe they didn’t; he doesn’t realize the question might be relevant.

He does spend a lot of energy explaining why we should care about this long-ago time of change and portent and breakthroughs. The reason is that it’s just like our current time of change, portent, etc. I find it discouraging that he would think the question was necessary, and discouraging that he would answer it the way he did. All in all, he provides a disincentive for checking out his book, especially since some of it appears to be about jazz.

The author’s name is Fred Kaplan and he covers defense issues for Slate. He screwed up very badly on Colin Powell’s UN speech but wrote some good columns explaining why the occupation of Iraq would probably be very difficult and not a good idea.