Gee, Dad, It’s a Wurtlitzer (Review of SLOW FADE)

This book review appeared in the December 14, 1984 issue of the Los Angeles Reader. For more on Wurlitzer, readers are invited to check out my reviews of Walker and Candy Mountain in the Chicago Reader, both available on this site.—J.R.



Slow Fade

By Rudolph Wurlitzer

Alfred A. Knopf: $13.95

By Jonathan Rosenbaum

The difference between the art novel and the Hollywood novel can be as vast as the reaches between the East coast and the West coast, and any effort to wed the two in a shotgun marriage is liable to blow up in one’s face. Slow Fade, while an exceptionally and deceptively easy read, is far from being an easy book — which is one of the best things about it. That’s probably what Michael Herr means by “dangerous” in his jacket-blurb patter: “Slow Fade comes out of the space between real life and the movies and closes it up for good. A great book: beautiful, funny, and dangerous.” Any novel that begins with one character losing an eye and ends up with another losing his index finger is bound to be fraught with scary Oedipal tensions, and Slow Fade goes out of its way to make the most out of them.

Despite certain stylistic continuities in Wurlitzer’s four slim novels to date, which link them all spiritually to Wim Wenders’ road movies and Sam Shepard’s theatrical Marlboro commercials — short laconic sentences, modernist neocowboy sentiments — they are radically different ventures and experiences. Nog (1969), the hardest to describe and probably the most enduring, survives as one of the key stoned novels of the sixties; as Richard Poirier points out in The Performing Self, it offers a stylistic approximation of the loss of identity found in many of the more nonverbal extremities of drug culture during that period. Flats (1970), the artiest, offers a Beckett-inspired conundrum featuring macho tramps (named after American cities) who do very little. Quake (1972), the plainest (as well as the most pretentiously unpretentious), gives us a postapocalyptic Los Angeles in the pulpy manner of Panic in Year Zero (a crumblimg Tropicana Motel; Melrose declaring war against Wilshire).

Slow Fade, the first Wurlitzer novel to appear in a dozen years, is the funniest, the longest (at 211 pages), and the least cryptic; it is also the most mainstream in scale and intention. While Quake certainly aimed at some of the spectacle and action of the exploitation film, Slow Fade aims higher and tries for some of the exploitation values of spectacle and action to be found in the art film, from Coppola to Cimino. Dealing directly with movies and moviemaking and indirectly with the fate of sixties mysticism, it needs to be seen at least partially within the context of the exploitation/art films on which Wurlitzer has worked as a scriptwriter: among others, Monte Hellman’s Two-Lane Blacktop and Jim McBride’s Glen and Randa (both 1971), Sam Peckinpah’s Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid (1973), and Robert Frank’s Energy and How to Get It (1981). No less relevant is a recent art film on which Wurlitzer had no creative role, but which almost certainly fed many of the ideas explored and exploited here: Wim Wenders’ disturbing account of Nicholas Ray’s last days in Lightning Over Water (1980).

More journalistic than Wurlitzer’s earlier books, this new novel offers a wealthy tourist’s glimpse of India, Mexico, and Newfoundland, as well as stateside filmmaking and gambling; it surveys a particular state of mind and income bracket that usually go together. At the outset we meet A.D. Ballou, an anything-goes hustler who flies to Santa Fe from New York to work as road manager for a group called the Gang Greene, only to find the group in total dissolution upon arrival. Straying onto a location where old-time Western director Wesley Hardin is filming an Indian ambush, he loses his left eye to an arrow and soon afterward finds himself in a script development deal bankrolled by Hardin, in collaboration with Hardin’s son Walker. About three years earlier, Hardin’s daughter Clementine went to India on a religious quest and was never heard from again; Hardin eventually sent Walker with his newlywed wife off to India in search of Clementine, and Walker has just returned, burned out, without wife, sister, or explanation. Hardin schemes to induce A.D. to convince Walker to turn his Indian adventures into a script that Hardin will eventually film.

***

As improbable as this setup sounds, Wurlitzer gets away with it by making Hardin an outsized Old Hollywood legend who could conceivably concoct such a scheme and uses this notion to propel his own basic storytelling structure. The story alternates between Hardin in Santa Fe, Mexico, and New York — shooting a last-stand Western until the producer blows the whistle and shuts off the funds, generating a cinéma vérité chronicle of his own life — and A.D. and Walker writing their script on the road, so that each movement in the present is complemented by an additional piece of the past uncovered. Apart from generating a respectable amount of plot suspense, this narrative counterpoint allows Wurlitzer to pursue a satirical bent as he charts both fantasy trips, which becomes a contrast between the spiritual excesses of two generations: Yoesmite Sam and Mr. Natural, each on a suicide mission. The vast expenditure of money in both plots becomes part of the overall point. Hardin and his entourage are on a demented spiritual quest while trying to shoot their movie, at the same time that Walker and A.D.’s script-in-progress depicts a pathetic, movie-inspired look at the American abroad in search of salvation. Imagine John Ford and Salinger’s Franny Glass trying to negotiate a contract and you get some notion of the manifold contradictions Wurlitzer straddles.

Two matching farcical high points: Wesley freaking out in Durango, Mexico, while shooting his Western; a Terry Southern-ish episode on a train in India (in A.D. and Walker’s script) when an American hippie couple ecstatically hornswoggle the fictional counterparts of Walker and his wife out of most of their belongings. The former scene, more Western (as in Nathanael) than Southern, proceeds through a sort of deadpan prose that seems almost obligatory to this sort of extravaganza:

The saloon was half complete, being in the middle of a transformation of a Mexico City whorehouse to a  border town cantina with crude wooden tables, low smoke-blackened ceiling, and a bar where several jars held live tarantulas and the curled form of a diamondback rattlesnake. Wesley took a table at the far end, facing the swinging doors. Pouring half the pharmaceutical coke on the table, he fashioned six rough lines, snorting them up with a rolled peso note and handing the note to his wife Evelyn.

“You are my life,” he whispered, kissing her on the ear.

“Is that why you are trying to end it?”

“Not end, precisely, to come to terms with, to slowly dissolve, perhaps.”

“Why not just cut to black,” she said, inhaling the rest of the coke.

“Why not, indeed.”

***

By the time Wurlitzer shifts the entire action, cast, and crew up to Newfoundland, both putative movies have merged into one — a single apocalyptic Walpurgis Night reeking of death and hysteria. Ending finally in a situation and setting sketched out as grimly yet comfortably postfilmic, the prose seems to breathe a sign of relief before expiring with a slow fade into one more macho myth of the mind. Like his deranged hero, Wurlitzer goes out in style and solemnly crawls his way back to Hemingway.

Los Angeles Reader, December 14, 1984 (slightly revised, December 2009)

Published on 14 Dec 1984 in Notes, by jrosenbaum

Comments Off

DOGS’ DIALOGUE (1984 review)

From Monthly Film Bulletin, December 1984 (Vol. 51,

No. 611). In retrospect, I’m rather proud of the synopsis

here, which must have been a bitch to put together. -– J.R.

Colloque de chiens (Dogs’ Dialogue)

France, 1977 Director: Râúl Ruiz

Cert–AA. dist–BFI. p.c–Filmoblic/L’Office de la Création

Cinématographique. p–Hubert Niogret. asst. d–Michel

Such. sc–Nicole Muchnik, Raul Ruiz. ph—Denis Lenoir,

Patrice Millet. In colour. still ph–Patrice Morère, Mario

Muchnik. ed–Valeria Sarmiento. m–Sergio Arriagada.

cost–Fanny Lebihan, Yves Hersen. sd. rec–Michel

Villain. sd. re-rec–Paul Bertaud. English version/English

commentary—Michael Graham. French version/French

commentary–Robert Darmel. l.p–Eva Simonet, Silke

Humel, Frank Lesne, Marie Christine Poisot, Hugo

Santiago, Geneviève Such, Laurence Such, Michel

Such, Pierre Olivier Such, Yves Wecker, the dogs of

the Gramont refuge. 1,938 ft. 22 mins. (35 mm.)

The film alternates three kinds of material: footage of

barking dogs, shots of streets and other locations, and

the following story, illustrated chiefly by a series of stills

(and occasionally by shots in motion) and narrated

off-screen: Monique discovers in a school playground

that the woman she believes to be her mother isn’t her

mother. At home, she learns that her real mother is a

woman named Marie, who doesn’t know who her father

was. As a young woman, Monique sets off for

Bordeaux to forget her past, and begins collecting

lovers. On night duty at a hospital she makes love to

a male patient. On Christmas eve, 1966, she meets the

sixty-five-year-old Hubert (owner of an Alfa Romeo)

in a nightclub, and becomes his kept mistress for a

year until he grows tired of her, then becomes a

street prostitute. One day she is visited by Henri, an

orphan from her village, now a radio and TV repairman,

who falls in love with her without knowing her

profession. Monique saves enough money to take over

the Joliment Café, which Henri helps her to run. Three

years later, the couple, who now have a son, are visited

by Monique’s friend Alice from Bordeaux, who knows

about her past, and Henri falls hopelessly in love with

her. On a park outing, Henri and Alice wander off

together, and Monique shoots her son and herself with

a single bullet from a revolver. Henri marries Alice

but, becoming distraught after learning more about

Monique, kills Alice with a wine bottle, chops her body

into several pieces, and proceeds to bury them in

different locations. He then sets off for Marseilles and

a life of crime, eventually being sentenced to five years

in prison for a minor offence. There he makes love to

an ailing male prisoner. After his release, Henri learns

that police inspector Maurice-José Morère has

discovered the buried pieces of Alice by noticing on a

map that they are all hidden at an equal distance from

the Joliment Café, forming a circle. To disguise himself,

Henri undergoes a sex change operation and becomes

Odile. On Christmas eve, 1974, she meets a sixty-five-

year-old owner of an Alfa Romeo in a nightclub and

becomes his kept mistress for a year until he grows

tired of her, then becomes a street prostitute.

Eventually she repurchases the Joliment Café and

adopts an orphan, Luigi. One night her lover from

prison breaks into the café and kills her. A few days

later, Luigi is told in a school playground that his

mother is dead, killed by her lover, and he replies

that Odile isn’t his mother.

Missing from the above synopsis of the hilarious

Colloque de chiens are the repetitions of certain

cliché phrases in the off-screen commentary (e.g.,

in hospital and prison alike, “A moment later, as

she/he arranges his bed, the young woman’s/man’s

hands stray under the sheets….Their union is

swift”), which lend an additional circularity to Râúl

Ruiz’s reductio ad absurdum, run-on melodramatic

plot. The principle of overload even infects the stills

which illustrate the ‘climactic’ episode, the killing of

Odile: alternate shots show her assailant grasping

either a knife or a bottle, as if to over-determine

further an already ludicrously overdetermined

chronicle of woe. While the barking dogs and location

shots are clearly less integrated, they are useful for

precisely that reason: as breathing spaces in the

cancerous narrative proliferation, hence as

moments of relative sanity and repose.

Virtually all Ruiz’s films have certain academic

aspects –- effects that seem studied rather than

stumbled upon. The most studied element here is

the deliberate naivety of the narrative voice (ably

conveyed by Michael Graham’s dry, deadpan delivery),

a parodic exposition of the rhetoric of melodrama

which accommodates all possible forms of crisis

within its measured, monotonous cadences — an

anonymous register of outrages that seems to take

excess as a matter of course. In contrast to this

consistency is the more lackadaisical progress of

the plot itself, which blithely leaps from Monique

as schoolgirl to Monique as young woman without

even a hint of ellipsis, calmly glides past the almost

total lack of motivation for Henri’s murder of Alice,

and no less casually heaps one improbable repetition

on another to impose the desired circularity on the

tortured careers of Monique and Henri.

The net result of these combined strategies is

to reveal melodrama itself as a pure formal

mechanism, with characters and plot reduced to

the status of necessary props. The disturbing lack

of individuality and identity which derives from

these attitudes, turning all the characters into

mere aspects of a playful, arbitrary schema, seems

merely the logical outcome of Ruiz’s skepticism

about the homogeneity of his own authorship.

With characters and auteur all assigned such

a mockingly nihilist function, the dialogue that

ensues might well signify no more than the

barking of dogs.

JONATHAN ROSENBAUM

Published on 03 Dec 1984 in Notes, by jrosenbaum

Comments Off