On Patience

malini

The power of doing anything with quickness is always much prized by the possessor, and often without any attention to the imperfection of the performance.–Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice.

Max Malini was a magician who came to America from Austria at the turn of the twentieth century. He made his fortune performing for the rich at their private soirees. While seated at their dinner tables, he would lift his bowler hat which had been lying on the table all evening, and reveal, underneath it,  a large solid block of ice. It was stunningly mystifying. Where could it have come from? It couldn’t have been sitting on his lap or hidden under his hat all evening without melting. There was no explanation. (If you’d like to see an encore of that performance, pick up the DVD of the excellent documentary tribute to magician Ricky Jay, Deceptive Practice).

“Max, how do you do the secret move without anyone seeing?” asked his fellow magicians.

“You vait,” he replied.

“How long?”

“You vait a veek if you must!”

Patience in art is a virtue if only because the audience cannot conceive that anyone would wait that week.

Or spend ten years to write that novel. But sometimes that is what it takes: the willingness to live with the anxiety of not knowing the outcome until a time far into the future. Really, when you think about it, the profession of a novelist is an absurd one. How can one possibly plan to spend a good chunk of one’s adult life working on a book only to find out later that no one likes it? It’s much easier to write a poem or short story, find out what people think, and move on to the next one.

Philip Roth in an interview once said that the first few hundred pages of writing a novel is agony because he knows that he’s going to throw away most of it in search of the one little seed from which the novel will eventually grow.

The readers never know of this wait. To them, the final product is given all at once like a Christmas present. They can devour the novel all at once. They don’t have to have the patience of the writer. That is part of the writer’s gift to them.

But the novelist has played a trick on the readers. The trade-off is this: the writer can take all the time in the world to achieve her or his effects. There’s no pressure because without a time limit on the creation, anything is theoretically possible to achieve. Write, edit, write, edit; rinse and repeat until it works.

My favorite Malini story concerns the time he accidentally picked up the wrong overcoat from his tailor. He realizes that it’s the coat of an acquaintance., so he returns it to the tailor that evening.

A few years later, Malini runs into the acquaintance. Malini asks the man to pick a card from a deck of cards. It is the four of hearts. Malini asks the man to take off his overcoat. With a pen knife, the magician slashes the lining of the coat. In the lining of the coat, behold, there is a matching card: the four of hearts.

Yes, Malini had sewn the card into the man’s overcoat the night he received the coat from the tailor all those years ago.

That’s artistic patience.

Stage Combat Part 4

I’ve met my downfall. Literally.

If you’ve been following this series of posts on Stage Combat ( here, here, and here), you’ll know that I prided myself on keeping up with the rest of the class despite being a whole lot older than anyone in the class.

Pride goeth before the fall. Literally.

I know, I used that joke already.

But that’s what it was: Monday was the day for practicing stage falls. All five kinds. With no mats. The theory being that if you are doing it right, you don’t need a mat. The operative words being “if you are doing it right.” I guess I wasn’t doing it right because I was banged up and bruised badly by the end of the class. I could accept the fact that falling down and getting up over and over would be tiring and give me reason to huff and puff, but I was not expecting to be aching all over.  I had to excuse myself towards the end of the class and beg off the last few exercises. The next few days did not see much improvement.

Well I think nothing was broken except my pride, but some definite sprains and strains. At least next week, we will be moving on to something else–knife fight!

Slow . . . Talkers . . . Of . . . America: Bob and Ray

Bob (Elliott) and Ray (Goulding) were wizards of understated humor. They expanded into television and theater, but the genesis of their humor was always a media critique of the banality of radio, a medium that they knew better than just about anybody else. The two of them created a whole gallery of beloved characters.  Their performances and scripts still hold up, more than half a century later.

The Size of Truth

speak_the_truth_even_if_your_voice_shakes_maggie_kuhn_cringle_park_levenshulme_manchester

What size is your truth? A funny question. But as I explore different media, this keeps coming up for me.

I was primarily trained in theater work. In a large theater, in order to communicate effectively, your acting has to famously reach the little old lady sitting in the back of the theater. Otherwise nothing; you’re performing for yourself. You learn to use your whole body, you learn to project your voice. The great days of theater before electrical amplification meant that the use of voice was almost synonymous with acting. When the great Italian Shakespearean actor Salvini was asked to name the most important requirements for an actor he said, “Voice! Voice! And more Voice!”

Today’s film actors would of course cringe at such a notion. Were a film actor to perform as if s/he were on a large stage, the results would be ludicrous. The camera picks up every nuance, every breath. There’s no need to do anything large. I once had an interesting conversation about film acting with magician Simon Lovell. He had acted in a few films and television shows (he has a very funny Jack Nicholson story I’ll tell sometime). His comment about film acting was that to get it the right size you have to feel as if you are doing nothing. And then cut that in half.

Radio, too, is an interesting medium. Unexpectedly, for me, I found radio to be much closer to film than theater with regard to the size of truth. Radio, it turns out, is an extraordinarily intimate medium. Listeners feel as if they are being directly addressed one on one. Any exaggeration in the voice is immediately discernible. The actor just has to trust that being truthful is enough. I recently was asked to take a poem I had written and record a reading of it for the radio. Despite recording it several times over, I was too big each time. I never did do it satisfactorily, in my opinion.

What would this mean with regard to writing? The size of truth in writing in some sense is just another name for good taste and sensibility. Some styles of writing are going to be big and baroque, while others will tell their truths in a more quiet way.

So far, when talking here about the size of truth, I have been talking about the “how” of communication. That is, how should we regulate the amplitude of our communication to fit the medium we are working in? But when talking about the size of truth we can also talk about the “what” of communication. That is, how important is your truth? The actor may have convinced us that there’s water in the glass, but who cares–why did your character need to drink it so badly in the first place? Some actors get stuck in the first obligation without meeting the second.

What about writer’s truth in this other sense, that of importance? Here lies the essential difference between non-fiction and fiction writing. The non-fiction writer achieves greatness the more general the truth–a paper that describes the general principle of the ability of all mass to warp the structure of space-time in its neighborhood would understandably cause quite a stir. But fiction writers–indeed all artists–are only successful to the degree that they can describe the particular. “There is no place for the general in art,” the Russian actor Stanislavski insisted. The artist’s truth is found only in the particular. We do not care about Danish Princes “in general,” we care about Hamlet.

So what are the important fictional truths? Not so easy to say. Easier to say what it isn’t. Pornography, for example, fails at art not because it shows us too much, but because it shows us too little. The truthful particulars of human relationship are obscured in favor of the immediate thrill. That may be fun or even useful, but it’s not the same as art. What kind of truth can writing deliver? It can deliver James Joyce truth, it can deliver Joseph Heller truth or it can tell us the truth regarding the slant of light through this particular window on this particular day at this particular time. I don’t know that I can do any better than that. The best art perhaps is that art which engenders an audience’s internal response which is not able to be reduced to another form–not even the form which first engendered that response. Then we know that art has done its best work.

Poem: Adornments

Adornments

I grabbed Mary-Jane’s earrings in the movie theatre,

Unfastened them in the Hayley Mills light

The land of strange people’s chairs.

*

She stands by her lover’s bedroom lamp

Trying to be graceful

When the cheap backings drop.

*

Later, she betrays me, acting as if she’d

Never known me. Married rich

As if she’d never shoplifted.

*

On the subway, older, I saw

Her cradle her child’s baby

The toddler wears a knit hat and golden posts

*

That glint. Tiny hands move upwards, hypnotized,

Touching her naked ears

Which hear nothing but ancient, urgent, whispers.