Sunday 24 November 2019

Guilty Pleasures (Part 19)

GUILTY PLEASURES (Part 19)


I wonder what a Roxy Music audience looks like? Would it include anyone under the age of forty or might it be solely an over-fifties thing? Might a proportion be lisping, middle-aged homosexuals or balding, pot-bellied ex-lotharios? Would it be a men only thing or would women be equally represented? Who might the men be as in what kind of work might they do as a living? Brick layers, carpenters and navvies or office middle-management and shopkeepers? Who might the women be? Housewives, divorcees, and the kind who work behind the perfume counters at John Lewis and Debenhams? Who knows?

A few of the early Sex Pistols followers were Roxy Music fans – Siouxsie Sioux and the Bromley contingent et al, so there's obviously pedigree there. David Bowie was a fan. Roxy Music always straddled the lines between glam rock kitsch and art school weird with a layer of sexual ambiguity slapped all over them. Brian Eno was always an alien, Andy Mackay was a porn film extra and Bryan Ferry was a lounge lizard. The other two were just Sixties throwbacks painted with a sprinkle of glitter. Though what kind of name is 'Brian' for a pop star? What kind of name is 'Bryan' for an oily, sexually perverted, cocktail bar crooner?

Is it fair to suggest Roxy Music were one of the most interesting yet largely unacknowledged bands of that whole 1970s Top Of The Pops era? Is it fair to suggest that not Virginia Plain, not Street Life, or not any of their hits but a song called If There Was Something from their debut album is one of the greatest songs ever?

There's only one way to find out, I suppose. So see you at the Exmouth Pavilion in January, windowlickers, where an approximation of Roxy Music will be trying to seduce, bugger and abandon a selection of sexually ambivalent farmers and fishermen (along with their fishwives?) from various towns and villages dotted along the East Devon coast. It's going to be the first gig of the year and probably the best gig of the year also...

Sunday 17 November 2019

The Ocean Fell Into The Drop - Terence Stamp

THE OCEAN FELL INTO THE DROP –
TERENCE STAMP

'Terry meets Julie, Waterloo Station, every Friday night,' as The Kinks once informed us in Waterloo Sunset. Terry being Terence Stamp and Julie being his girlfriend at that time, Julie Christie. And of course he does and will do so forever more through being immortalised in song. Stuck in a moment forever. In perpetuity. No matter that Ray Davies has since denied the song is about them for if anything this serves only to make it all the more strangely frozen in time. Cast in stone.

Terence Stamp is someone who came to define the Sixties and Swinging London in the same way as did others from a similar background such as David Bailey and Michael Caine. Working class chancers all, from impoverishment to the world at their feet in almost a single bound. The Ocean Fell Into The Drop is his memoir and the immediately refreshing thing about it is how you can tell by the quirkiness of the writing that it was actually written by himself rather than it being ghost written. Unlike a lot of books of this type as well, it's not bloated and full of its own self-importance but comes in at only a modest 176 pages.
It's a parody almost of his 1979 film Meetings With Remarkable Men where he played Prince Lubovedsky in the film adaptation of the book of the same name by philosopher and mystic G I Gurdjieff. It's written with good humour and much respect, and like Gurdjieff's book tells the story of his encounters with various remarkable and enchanting people.


As might be expected, during his heyday Terence met them all and dated a fair few of them also: Peter Ustinov, Laurence Olivier, Sarah Miles, Samantha Eggar, John Lennon, Francis Bacon, Ken Loach, Jimi Hendrix, Orson Welles, Rita Hayworth, Brigitte Bardot, Vidal Sassoon, etc, etc. It's a veritable panoply of stars that he waltzes us through, all dearly loved in one way or another. Clearly, he liked his ladies and clearly they liked him back. And why not? Terence was talented, cool, good looking, had beautiful eyes and was a bit of a cheeky chappie. Or as his father is quoted as describing him in full Cockney twang: “Ee's a very lucky boy”.

Of all the people he met and worked with, however, the one who touched him most deeply and had the most impact upon him was Indian philosopher J Krishnamurti, whom Terence met seemingly quite by accident. It was whilst filming in Italy with Federico Fellini that he was invited to a dinner party at which Krishnamurti was also in attendance. It was only years later that Terence discovered that Krishnamurti had specifically requested Terence be invited after seeing film footage of him whilst being entertained previously by Fellini. “I'd like to meet that boy,” Krishnamurti had said to Fellini, and so Terence ended up sitting opposite him at dinner, not quite knowing exactly who Krishnamurti was.

After the dinner, out of all the guests there, it was Terence who was invited for an after-dinner walk with the great sage. Whilst not having spoken during the dinner, strolling along together outside Terence babbled away about general subjects of chit-chat, still not fully understanding who Krishnamurti was.
Look at that tree,” said Krishnamurti to him, as he touched Terence upon the arm. Terence acknowledged it and continued chatting away. “Look at that cloud,” said Krishnamurti, again touching Terence upon the arm. Again Terence acknowledged it and continued chatting, slightly confused as to why Krishnamurti's main engagement in conversation with him was to highlight a tree and a cloud. The effect upon Terence from this meeting and this apparently one-way conversation would prove, however, to be profound.

All other encounters with remarkable people over the course of his career are almost superfluous to this initial encounter with Krishnamurti and it sets him on a path that he has remained on ever since, even during the periods when his film career had ground to a near halt.
With the end of the Sixties came the end of film offers, due apparently to Terence being so closely associated with that decade and the world having moved on. Subsequently, Terence spent much of the Seventies in India searching - for want of a better word - for enlightenment. For a time he even became a sannyasen under the tutorship of 'controversial' Indian guru Bhagwan Shri Rajneesh. Throughout this whole time, from afar Krishnamurti continued to keep an eye on him.


Throughout the book, Terence offers up anecdotes about all the people he gets to meet, the most amusing concerning Marlon Brando on the set of Superman where Brando has arrived with an entourage of two sisters. “See those two girls over there,” Brando says to Terence “They want your dick”.
At one point in the book he tells us of the time when he asked Krishnamurti what it was like when Krishnamurti first experienced total consciousness, or illumination. Krishnamurti considered the question for a moment and then replied “The ocean fell into the drop”. Hence the title of the book. It's a good, almost perfect Krishnamurti quote and as it's been used as the title for Terence's memoir, it's worth considering.

'The ocean fell into the drop' is a simple but at the same time very clever statement, the reverse of course, of 'the drop fell into the ocean', and very easy to grasp the meaning of. Is it, however, what might be called an 'absolute truth'? Almost, I would say, but not quite.
If there is an ocean and if there is a drop it implies an imbalance, the greater weight and the greater capacity being with the ocean. Both the ocean and the drop, however, are of equal importance and of equal measure in the meaning to each other. One is not complete without the other. The vessel holding both the ocean and the drop – whether that be the Universe or the singular person – is not completely full or not whole without being full to the last drop. Without the ocean, the drop is not complete and without the drop, the ocean is not complete. Understanding the importance of the ocean to the drop and the drop to the ocean leads to wholeness and balance – and perfect balance at that.

Krishnamurti never declared himself to be The Light, he did the complete opposite, in fact. All he did was to point the way to The Light. With this in mind, it's easy to see why Krisnamurti gently admonished Terence on learning of his travels in India seeking out various gurus and his association with the sannyasens: “You don't find this in a supermarket” he tells Terence.

Why Krishnamurti took an interest in this young actor by the name of Terence Stamp rather than anyone else at the dinner party where they met (and remember this party included such luminaries as one of the greatest film directors of all time, Federico Fellini) remains unclear even to Terence. Perhaps he saw in Terence a kindred soul? Whatever the reason, to have had Krishnamurti keeping an eye on you throughout life is one of the most blessed gifts. Summed up, indeed, by what Terence's father – an ordinary, uneducated, working class tugboat man from East London – had deduced very early on at the start of his son's film career and without any need to travel to India to seek out gurus: “Ee's a very lucky boy”....
John Serpico

Saturday 9 November 2019

Pan - Knut Hamsun

PAN – KNUT HAMSUN

If ever a book can be said to be heavy with symbolism then it is Pan by Knut Hamsun. On the surface it's the story of a love affair conducted over a summer between a hunter who lives alone in a hut in the woods and the daughter of a local merchant in a coastal village in northern Norway. All well and good and all very Scandinavian but it's only once you come to the end of it that you think: 'Hang on, what is this I've just read?'.


Pan is indeed the story of a love affair but it is also about the chasm and even the clash between nature and civil society. It's about perception and interpretation. It's about sex and love and the joining of the two but also about separation. It's a bee dance but with people rather than insects moving and circling around each other. It's about not knowing what to do with love when it happens. It's about the beauty of love but how it also causes pain and damage. It's about being touched by love and never being able to recover. It's about the flitting in a blink of an eye between objectivity and subjectivity, reality and dream, and truth and illusion. It's about messages communicated by actions. It's about communication via objects. It's about life in all its glory and all its knotted, bound-up frustration. It's about the beauty of the world and the ugliness within it. It's about free will. It's about contradiction, suspicion, confusion, despair, jealousy, worthiness, nature, the seasons, attrition, fragmentation, self-destruction, lust, obsession, exultation, paranoia, rivalry, pride, and sorrow.

That's all.

Whilst on the subject of Knut Hamsun, there's a conversation to be had here regarding artists, their work, their personal lives and their politics, and whether the three can or even should be separated? It's a very old debate that crops up every year or so and has just recently surfaced again.
There's a scene in The Joker where Joaquin Phoenix dances down a flight of steps to the tune of Gary Glitter's old song, Rock'n'Roll Part 2. It's well choreographed and the music fits the scene perfectly. The question being, however, that should a song by a convicted paedophile have been used at all? The answer was that Gary Glitter holds no publishing rights to the song so he wouldn't make any money from it, and that also in America the same song is often played at football matches so is viewed in a different context to how it's viewed in England.
In a recent essay, Nick Cave wrote disparagingly about anti-fascists, suggesting they are in a mutually self-sustaining marriage with the Far Right. Cave's political naivety was embarrassing and displayed a complete lack of understanding of the danger presented by the Far Right if not challenged. Could his lack of political insight be kept apart from his art or did it represent a shadow now cast upon it?

In regards to Knut Hamsun, it turns out that this towering figure in Norwegian literacy and according to Charles Bukowski “the greatest writer who has ever lived” was a supporter of Hitler, though there's no indication of this in any of his books. For Norwegians, this has apparently been the cause of endless grief for them that they've wrestled with ever since, trying to separate their world-famous writer from his political beliefs.

Does now knowing this about Hamsun colour his books? Yes, of course it does. In the same way that if Hamsun had been a vocal or even physical opponent of the Nazis it would surely enhance his books - or the reception of them at least. In the same way that you can blind taste wine you can also read books, hear music or watch films with one eye closed. Once the blind-fold is lifted, however, there is no escape from the truth which then leads to the dilemma. The saving grace is that the decision made as to whether you continue reading, listening or viewing or whether the art has been spoilt forever is a personal one. These questions are the stuff of being human. The stuff, in a way, of Knut Hamsun's writings
John Serpico