Saturday, July 4, 2020
Monday, June 8, 2020
Interview with Caroline Madden: Author of Springsteen as Soundtrack
When did you first become a fan of Springsteen’s music?
I first became aware of Springsteen’s music when I was around twelve years old. My mom and I would listen to the Essential CD in the car all the time. I especially loved his 80s sound and Born in the U.S.A. because at the time I was obsessed with Back to the Future and loved pop culture from that decade. When I was seventeen, I became more of a fan after reading Elizabeth Wurtzel’s memoir Prozac Nation. The poignant way she described his music and her intensely personal connection to him made me seek out the deeper cuts in his catalog (such as “The Promise”), and from then on I was hooked.
What was the genesis of Springsteen as Soundtrack?
The idea for the book came to me during grad school where I was majoring in Cinema Studies at Savannah College of Art and Design. As both a Springsteen fan and student of film, I researched his IMDb and saw that his music was on the soundtrack of over 200 films and television shows. Then, I began making my way through as much of the titles as I could. Around this time, I was also reading a lot of Springsteen scholarship, and I noticed that although film was a formative influence on his music, there was little to no writing about it. Most books about Springsteen cover his connections to religion, politics, literature, or American history. My thought was that if Springsteen was so inspired by films and his music was making such an impact on them, shouldn’t there be a book about it?
Why do you think Springsteen’s music appeals to such a wide variety of filmmakers?
Roger Ebert calls film an “empathy machine,” and that is how Springsteen’s music functions: he places you in the shoes of another through his introspective and affecting songs. The script-like specificity of his lyrics allow you to emotionally identify with and understand his characters. Like the best of films, he speaks to the trials and tribulations of our everyday lives—family, love, depression, perseverance, hope. The universality and the grounded nature of his music appeals to a variety of filmmaker’s genres and styles.
Is Springsteen selective about granting permission to use his music in movies/television?
Springsteen was more selective in the past, but overall he is quite choosy about which films are allowed to have his music. If you ever get the chance to read the court depositions in Down Thunder Road by Marc Eliot with Mike Appel, you’ll get the sense of just how protective Bruce is of his work and his art—particularly when he was young; it was all he had. He has carried that fervent passion with him all of his life. Since Bruce is so defensive of his work, naturally it does not appear in just any film and television show that makes a request. If Bruce does not have an outstanding relationship with the director, he will go so far as to read the script or at least an outline of what the project entails. Springsteen assesses how the song will be used formally in the film, but most importantly whether or not the film aligns with his values. Such careful consideration is what prompted me to write the book in the first place; I wanted to ask why these films resonated with Bruce.
How did movies influence Springsteen’s early songwriting from the 1960s and 1970s?
In interviews, Bruce describes going to the Jersey drive-in movie theatres nearly every weekend. He was heavily influenced by the westerns and road movies that played there. His early, unreleased songs such as “The Evacuation of the West” and “Cowboys of the Sea” borrow from the western genre’s iconography of cowboys riding into sunsets or shoot-outs in the middle of town. Robert Mitchum’s Thunder Road and other B-movies inspired a lot of the songs on Born to Run. Born to Run has a very 1950s aesthetic that matches these cheap, pulpy movies that Bruce loved growing up.
Springsteen’s grandiose, Phil Spector-esque sounds match the film genre’s splashiness and melodramatics. He was also drawn to the genre’s characters with nomadic hearts.
I was intrigued to read that during the making of his 1978 album Darkness on the Edge of Town Springsteen was reading The American Cinema by Andrew Sarris. How did a work of film criticism inform a rock album?
I think Springsteen was actually just looking for attention-grabbing titles. But his use of the book indicates just how much cinema is interwoven into his music. A lot of the titles he and Jon Landau considered for what ultimately became Darkness on the Edge of Town, such as History Is Made at Night or American Madness, are very bold and speak to the human condition. Darkness is not based off of a film title, but it echoes the film noir genre and seems to voice the pain of his everyday characters meeting their fates.
Although Springsteen has made the occasional cameo appearance and acted in his music videos, he never starred in a motion picture (to my knowledge). Are acting or directing avenues he ever considered?
There are rumors of Bruce auditioning for films during the 1970s and 1980s, and Martin Scorsese courting him for some roles. However, Springsteen insists that he never actively seeked film roles because he didn’t want to take away from his music. Although Bruce is the Boss and has creative final say on the look of his music videos, he takes a more directorial approach in conceptualizing his “Hunter of Invisible Game” music video and the recently released film Western Stars (although he has stated that co-director Thom Zimny is actually the one behind the camera). Bruce shaped the script and framework of Western Stars, and likely had some say in the way shots would be set up. I don’t personally find Bruce that compelling of an actor (ex. his Lilyhammer cameo), but I think he would make an intriguing director. I would love to see Bruce write a fiction novel; his writing in Born to Run was exceptional, and I feel he would tell some good stories. Also, as his Western Stars score and tribute song for Ennio Morricone shows that he crafts gorgeous instrumental music. It would be very intriguing to see him compose another film score.
The 1983 John Sayles film Baby It’s You was one of the first films to utilize Springsteen’s music. How did that particular film set a template for merging Springsteen’s music with cinema?
It set a template in terms of the songs either speaking for a character or commenting on the action, and it does so beautifully. It helps that Baby It’s You is a Springsteen song come to life with its early 1960s setting, teenager protagonists, hot rodding exploits, love theme, and transition from childhood to adulthood. Sayles is a fantastic music director; he arranges and edits his visuals to the songs, making it seem as if the popular music is an organic part of the images.
Your chapter on Mask (1985, Dir. Peter Bogdanovich) is a case study on how soundtracks are critical to how a film is perceived. How does the process of deciding what music will go into a film or television episode typically work?
It varies by director and project. They may write the songs into the script and hope for the best when trying to secure the rights to the song, such as George Lucas for American Graffiti. Others edit first and then find the music, which in the case of Show Me a Hero is quite remarkable considering how well the Springsteen montages flow.
The Vietnam War had a profound influence on Springsteen’s songwriting from “Lost in the Flood” on his debut album to the massive 1984 hit “Born in the USA.” Your chapter on the underrated 1989 film In Country looks at the war through the lens of Springsteen’s music.
How did the war shape Springsteen’s world view?
The war shaped Springsteen’s world view in vast ways. He received a draft notice when he was a very young man during a time period filled with rage, uncertainty, and tragedy. He had recently graduated high school when his friends were going overseas to fight (and die) in a country they couldn’t even find on a map. The Vietnam War shaped the liberal ideals that he still follows today. It taught him to be more politically aware, to participate in voting, and to vote for candidates that truly cared about their citizens and bettering the American people. Vietnam gave him rather pacifistic views that the majority of war was unnecessary and driven by greed or senseless political scheming.
How has his music shaped the collective memory of The Vietnam War?
The 1980s were all about processing the Vietnam War and defining how it would be remembered for future generations. While Bruce has a lot of songs about Vietnam and veterans, “Born in the U.S.A.” is an integral part of the war’s cultural memory—one that is incredibly poignant but also majorly misunderstood. As a backlash against the countercultural movement and the national disdain for those who participated in what was considered a “senseless” war, the conservative right began aggrandizing veterans as hypermasculine heroes who glorified an imperialistic and strengthened nation. “Born in the U.S.A.” was misinterpreted as part of this movement because of its nationalistic sounds and iconography. The chorus was seen as prideful, when really it was an ironic interrogation of America’s values: How can we cry “Born in the U.S.A.!” when our veterans are dying hungry and jobless? “Born in the U.S.A.” dared to critique America’s response to the Vietnam War during a time when the country was trying to restore its image and relationship with Americans.
Springsteen wrote “Streets of Philadelphia” for the 1993 Jonathan Demme film Philadelphia. How did the song contribute to the discourse surrounding the movie?
As I discuss in the book, director Jonathan Demme wanted a very masculine musician to write a rock anthem for the film’s opening. However, Springsteen was inspired to create a very somber, moving ballad. This sound, along with the use of first-person narration and lyrics about what it feels like to be abandoned and slowly dying, helped audiences to understand the lead characters’ perspective and truly put them in the shoes of men and women afflicted with AIDS. Andy’s feelings of depression and desperation became intensely relatable. During this time, people with AIDS were feared, disdained, or outright ignored. The song got widespread radio airplay and was attached to a film starring Tom Hanks, thus ensuring its mass appeal and consumption. Springsteen’s song was a key component in people changing their minds and opening their hearts to understand and care about people with AIDS—Demme’s ultimate goal. Springsteen is a “man of the people” and the common man’s hero, therefore his empathetic expressions of those suffering with AIDS were appreciated by all.
You wrote High Fidelity (2000, Stephen Frears), “embodies Springsteen’s thematic concerns of lost youth, masculinity, and rock and roll.” High Fidelity has since been criticized for its depiction of music snobbery and entitled male behavior. Does the film deserve another look when viewed in the context of changing gender dynamics in Springsteen’s music over the decades?
I share those criticisms of High Fidelity. I dislike the male behavior displayed and I personally don’t feel Rob learns very much by the film’s end, or at least he never owns up to/critiques his behavior in any substantial way. I think a reexamination of the film would benefit those who are not familiar with Bruce Springsteen. Most would assume he fits within the rock and roll archetypes that Rob cherishes, but a deeper look into Springsteen’s catalog beyond his early music or party songs reveals a changing look at women, one that is the complete opposite of what Rob idolizes. I don’t think the film itself communicates much of this, but I would suggest viewers who are not as familiar with Springsteen branch into his catalog more. It would illuminate a lot of the film’s very hidden subtext.
At this point in time Springsteen’s vast catalog can serve as a narrative of American history. Your chapter on the HBO mini-series Show Me A Hero argues as such. How did the series and Springsteen’s music combine to tell such a complex story about politics and history?
Show Me a Hero tackles something that could be very dry: the construction of affordable housing, but Springsteen’s music (along with other elements such as Oscar Isaac’s performance) transforms it into a very engrossing and humanistic narrative. Bruce’s music is a consistent thread that gives the story the universality it needs for viewers to absorb the miniseries’ altruistic message of racial equality. Without it, the forward-thinking ideals would be lost in the political jargon and mechanics. The music not only speaks for the main character Nick, voicing his thoughts, struggles and wishes, but all of the marginalized characters in Yonkers that he fights for. Springsteen’s music connects us all through our dreams, fears, and emotions—no matter what our skin color or political leaning is. All the people of color in Yonkers want a comfortable home, a space to raise their family and live their lives. The use of Springsteen’s music in montages connects them to the characters who are protesting against them, thus asserting that we are all one and the same. Springsteen’s entire canon taps into that sense of place, family, and fidelity. Having extratextual knowledge of what Bruce stands for—the true American values of equality, the pursuit of happiness, and the respect of others—allows you to make those connections.
Do you think 21st Century filmmakers taken a different approach to using Springsteen music in their movies? Or is there a continuity with the 1980s and 1990s?
That’s a really great question! I think, formally, some directors use Bruce in more innovative ways than others. I’m thinking of John Sayles’ or Andrea Arnolds’ music video style editing or montages. Sayles in particular seems to seamlessly weave Bruce’s music into the temporality and visual flair of Baby It’s You. During the ‘80s, films like In Country used Bruce to seem more contemporary and culturally relevant, since that was his height of popularity. In‘90s films like High Fidelity, he is seen through a nostalgic lens; he comes to represent what was so special about the past. This has only increased with films today like Blinded by the Light. Now, modern directors and films, such as in American Honey or Show Me a Hero, are tapping into Springsteen’s politics and using his music to express their visions of racial and LGBTQ equality. Springsteen is seen as the grandfather of America, a storied cultural icon and social justice hero who communicates what our American values should be.
I recently watched Blinded by the Light. I was thinking the film could be another chapter in Springsteen As Soundtrack. I was wondering if you had any thoughts on the film and/or the cross-cultural appeal of Springsteen’s music?
It was released during the writing of my book and I was worried about having to push back my deadline to include it. However, as each chapter in my book focuses on a particular theme, I felt my Show Me a Hero chapter was an extensive look at how race plays into Bruce’s music. But that is not to say that there isn’t a wealth of discussion relating to the film, the book it’s based on, and Bruce’s relationship with race. Blinded by the Light certainly fits within the modern use of Bruce’s music as commentary on larger social issues. Its story about a marginalized teen connecting to Bruce’s music and not feeling like an outsider would make a great double feature with Mask. I appreciated its unique Bollywood aesthetic and musical-esque treatment of Springsteen’s songs. I particularly enjoyed the inventive use of putting the lyrics on screen. Most of all, I loved seeing a Springsteen fan protagonist that wasn’t white! In my book, (and in most films that use his music) the majority of characters who Springsteen fans are white men. Blinded by the Light was also key to introducing Bruce to younger audiences, so his work can live in the next generations.
Of all the films and Television series you wrote about in Springsteen as Soundtrack, which one or two in your opinion used Springsteen’s music to best effect?
Baby It’s You has such a special place in my heart because it really feels like you’re watching something from Born to Run manifest on screen. I think Sayles had a keen understanding of how Bruce’s music could fit both visually and thematically. All of the scenes that use his songs have a sparkling energy that give the film an exciting tension. The scenes of the star-crossed lovers walking around Asbury Park are particularly sweet. It’s an underrated film that I think every Bruce fan would love.
A big thanks to Caroline for agreeing to do the interview!
You can purchase Springsteen as Soundtrack by clicking on one of the the links below:
Monday, May 25, 2020
Book Review: The Beatles and the Historians by Erin Torkelson Weber
Weber synthesizes the historiography of the Beatles and identifies four major narratives: The Fab Four Narrative, Lennon Remembers, The Shout! Narrative, and the recent work of historian Mark Lewisohn that's moving towards an orthodoxy. These stages are marked by changing public perceptions, historical events, and the discovery of new information relating to The Beatles.
The Fab Four Narrative was shaped during the active years of The Beatles from their rise to fame in 1963 to their break up in 1970. This narrative was directed the Public Relations machine of the group, a sanitized story, more mythology than fact. The 1964 film A Hard Day's Night forever shaped the band's public image with each member being coded with a personality type: John Lennon's sarcastic wit, happy go lucky McCartney, introverted George, and nice guy Ringo. The Beatles presented themselves as a united front with no internal conflict The songwriting partnership of Lennon/McCartney was presented as the foundation of the group's success. In 1968 The Beatles: The Authorized Biography by Hunter Davies came out, which remains useful for an early account of the group, but the content was heavily controlled so a lot of negative information was left out.
The breakup of band in 1970 ruptured the Fab Four narrative, dividing fans and the media into Lennon and McCartney camps. Weber singles out the 1971 interview John Lennon gave to Rolling Stone, earth shaking in its attempt to destroy the image of The Beatles. Much of Lennon's anger was directed at McCartney. He dismissed much of the band's music and claimed he and Paul had stopped writing songs together as far back as 1962. He spoke of the group's disdain for their fans and each other. He was open about the band's dependence on drugs, sex, partying while on tour, a far cry from the squeaky clean image of the past. But Lennon's main agenda was to prove he was the sole genius in the group, the driving force behind all their success and greatest music. As Weber points out, Lennon was angry and possibly under the influence of drugs during the interview, a few years later Lennon himself said as much.
Nevertheless, the Lennon Remembers narrative took on a life of its own. McCartney's reluctance to speak openly with the press during he 1970s led many to believe most of Lennon's claims were true: Paul was the more commercial songwriter who would always be in Lennon's shadow. The rock press also sided with Lennon, Rolling Stone trashed every new McCartney album, while their coverage of Lennon through the 1970s bordered on sycophantic.
The Lennon/McCartney war originated for complex reasons. Legal and business issues often intruded, such as Paul's refusal to accept Allen Klein as the new manager of The Beatles and his public announcement of the break up in 1970. John's 1971 song "How Do You Sleep" dismissed his old partner as a hack, even resorting to hurtful personal insults. Yet sources that emerged later suggested their conflict was only public, in private they remained close and often spoke on the phone. Each flirted with the idea of getting back together when the time was right. Yet there was a rivalry between them. An example is the song "Eleanor Rigby" which Lennon claimed was all his, something McCartney took as disrespectful and went to great lengths to discredit. In later years McCartney emphasized how he was the driving force behind the band's most adventurous music.
John Lennon's tragic death in 1980 brought on further changes to the narrative. Weber points to Shout!: The Beatles in Their Generation (1981) by Phillip Norman as a transitional book, despite its obvious bias towards Lennon. But it did provide historical context and perspective. The circumstances of Lennon's death elevated him to legendary status alongside JFK and Martin Luther King as icons of the 1960s, and for a time his martyr status placed him above all criticism. By the late 1980s biographies of Lennon, most infamously The Lives of John Lennon by Albert Goldman, assailed the saintly image of John. The book portrayed him as a depressed drug addict during his later years, prone to violence towards his wife Yoko Ono, and riddled with resentment towards his old band mates. Those charges only scratched the surface. Weber points out Goldman depended on one questionable source for many of these claims, while the most outrageous ones lacked supporting evidence.
Since the 1990s more nuanced studies of The Beatles have emerged as time and distance have allowed for balance and accuracy. The 1995 documentary The Beatles Anthology produced by the surviving members introduced their music to a new generation although (Weber criticizes the film for not being open enough). McCartney also worked to preserve the band's legacy, presenting a more balanced view of his friendship with John. Most books now consider them to be creative equals, in fact it was the camaraderie and tension between them that fueled their collaboration. Historians and critics are also starting to finally devote more attention to George and Ringo, acknowledging their contributions have always been ignored and undervalued in past narratives.
Mark Lewisohn has emerged as the preeminent historian of The Beatles. By having access to all the files and having interviewed hundreds of people in the group's orbit, he's currently writing the most detailed history to date. Doing his best to avoid bias and rely strictly on the facts, his work will shape the band's narrative for decades to come.
The Beatles and the Historians is not just a valuable work for Beatles fans, but also on how historical study and research works. Weber's writing is precise and clear, each chapter is clearly organized into sections. One may not learn anything new about The Beatles, but it will provide valuable insights on The Beatles as historical figures and how historical narratives are shaped (an important tool to have these days).
Saturday, May 16, 2020
Wednesday, April 15, 2020
Book Review: The American Cinema: Directors and Directions, 1929-1968 by Andrew Sarris
The book changed the way film goers about movies, in particular movies from the studio era. For a long time those films were viewed as no different Fords coming off an assembly line, the overwhelming majority serving as mediocre entertainments. Directors were viewed more as orchestra conductors instead of artists. Along with French New Wave filmmakers who energized by American film, these movies and their directors took on an entirely new meaning.
The book uses a creative ranking system, starting with the "Pantheon Directors." These were directors who not only innovators, but laid the foundations of cinema. Some of the list include Alfred Hitchcock, John Ford, Fritz Lang, Orson Welles, and Charles Chaplin. Many, many more directors are covered ranging from the familiar to the obscure. Ranging from near great to overrated, some of the essays are jaw dropping in their dismissals, especially for John Huston and Stanley Kubrick. Agree or disagree, there's a verve and power to the writing.
American Cinema should still be read by any student or fan of film. In a recent interview, Quentin Tarantino recalled stealing an edition from his school library. Good criticism should get under the skin and Sarris is not afraid for the occasional takedown. The book also calls for the reevaluation and unearths many forgotten films from directors no one remembers, serving as a crash course in film. Sarris allows the reader to look at film in a critical way - and makes you think about why you like what you like.
Limitations are also apparent. The work of female directors is for the most part ignored. Cinematography is mentioned, but there should be more on its relationship to direction. But Sarris freely admits the auteur approach may only apply to certain directors, those with a deep enough filmography.
One wonders how Sarris managed to see all these films long before home video. They were only available on television or maybe through available prints, living in New York may have given him more access. Regardless, the book is an impressive feat for its vivid prose and encyclopedic approach to film history.
Friday, April 10, 2020
It's Time For Vote-by-Mail to be Universal
Ohio took the drastic step of postponing their March Primary and has been encouraging voters to vote by mail. I received mine today as I've done in previous elections. Here are some advantages.
1) Avoid Election Day Lines - There's a sense of civic ritual of going into vote that's been highly valued in American history. But waiting in lines for hours on end on a weekday seems absurd in this day and age. It's too easy NOT TO VOTE under a system like this (speaking from personal experience). Getting a ballot by mail will bypass the obstacle of "election day."
2) Research the Candidates - There's no pressure with home voting either. You can do your own vetting of the candidates and come to a deliberate decision (as opposed to rushed one). The prominent positions get all the attention, but local positions are critical and all candidates should be vetted online.
3) Paper Ballot - A return to paper voting would alleviate technology concerns. We know hostile countries have tried to hack into American elections. So taking technology out of the equation would help ensure the integrity of the system and put those hackers out of business.
4) It's safer for all citizens - Public health concerns aside, voting by mail would make it easier for senior citizens to vote. Working families with busy schedules would not have to worry about getting to the polls in time.
5) Bi-Partisan Support - Despite statements by the President and some Republicans who fear voting by mail would favor Democrats since it would mean higher turnouts, there's little evidence to support the claim. As a NY Times article points out, there's actually widespread support in both parties for Vote-by-Mail. In fact, many Democrats have concerns about minority turnout if election goes to all mail, although the Times article never explains why. Republican officials here in Ohio have encouraged all mail voting - so evidence points to bi-partisan support.
6) Allows Elections to be Extended - Why not extend voting by a month, allowing everybody an equal chance to vote without scrambling at the last minute. Doing it all in one day always seems like a recipe for disaster as we saw in 2000 with Bush v Gore.
7) Curb Voter Suppression - Unfortunately voter suppression is on the rise. America has a long history of preventing African-Americans and other minorities from voting. Legislation during the Civil Rights era in the 1950s and 1960s was designed to stop literacy tests and poll taxes, common practices in the Jim Crow South to suppress the black vote. Recently, voter ID laws have been used to deny American citizens the right to vote. Without a picture ID, you can be denied your vote on election days. Limits on registration drives have also cut into turnout. These practices are anti-democratic and must be called out and stopped.
An informed citizenry is the lifeblood of democracy, mail-by-vote would allow for more and better informed voting. Not only is it critical every American have the right to vote, but the assurance their vote will be counted. Citizens voting from the comfort of their homes or designated locations will improve turnout and the health of democracy. So, stay at home and vote!
Friday, January 24, 2020
When SNL Made Star Trek Hip
Saturday Night Live premiered in the fall of 1975 and instantly changed the landscape of television. The irreverent satire by the post-60s generation hit a cultural nerve. The first season is especially fascinating to watch as the show found its identity. An episode with Paul Simon was mostly music performance. Jim Henson presented a more adult oriented version of the Muppets each week and Albert Brooks contributed a short film for each episode. But the sketches became the centerpiece. Chevy Chase stood above the rest of the cast and by May of 1976 SNL was a pop culture phenomenon.
Entitled "The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise" and written by Michael O'Donoghue the sketch ran a marathon 12 minutes. The date was May 29, 1976. A tour de force of performance and satire, it would poke fun at the acting style of Star Trek and ratings obsessed network executives. John Belushi portrayed Captain Kirk, nailing Shatner's speech cadence and physicality. Chase played Spock and Dan Aykroyd as McCoy.
The sketch begins with Enterprise being chased by a Chrysler Imperial. The ship starts to lose power and gets boarded by an NBC executive played by Eilliot Gould (a regular host in the early years). He there to announce the cancellation of Star Trek due to low ratings, although his kids love the show. Spock's attempts to apply the Vulcan nerve pinch and fails. As they begin to tear down the set the cast gives up and leaves. Kirk is told he has an offer from a margarine company and concludes the sketch by saying, "except for one television network, we have found intelligence everywhere in the galaxy."
Apparently the dress rehearsal went badly. Chase resented Belushi for being the central figure in the sketch (mirroring the Shatner/Nimoy rivalry). But the live performance went well and everyone was happy with it. As the years went by it was consistently ranked as one of the best sketches in SNL's history.
The sketch also hit the zeitgeist: people wanted more Star Trek. Gene Roddenberry and former cast members both praised SNL and it helped insure the franchise would continue. At the same it was one of Belushi's finest moments on the show - creating a breakthrough moment in pop culture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
