The album as an art form: Lazarus & David Bowie

Big spoiler warning for the musical Lazarus

The 1976 Nicolas Roeg film The Man Who Fell To Earth is chiefly about visions. Newton’s home world saw the abundance of water on Earth through their own variation of TV. Newton can see light spectra that humans cannot, like x-rays. There are scenes where Newton looks into the past of places on Earth and is seen in return. Newton also had an uncanny connection to the three humans he was to have the most involvement with before meeting them (Oliver Farnsworth, Nathan Bryce and Mary Lou).

Events like these suggest that Newton can see across dimensions as well. Many of his decisions (such as when to sell patents and begin constructing a space craft) are dictated by his visions.

In addition to this, there is a passive thematic emphasis on eyes. After the true shape and color of Thomas Jerome Newton’s eyes are revealed, we are shown Mary Lou in a room with an oil painting of a cat. The shot begins with a close up of the cat’s golden eyes with their vertical pupils. In conjunction with Newton’s extra-dimensional vision, the close up of the cat painting makes an understated connection with the eyes of a cat. To say nothing, of course, of the wavelengths of light that cats can see but humans cannot (or the resemblance between Newton’s eyes and cat eyes).

I have not yet read the original Walter Tevis novel that inspired both the film and the musical. From the research I’ve done so far, though, there is no indication that Thomas Jerome Newton was able to see across time in the book. This appears to have been the biggest point of departure for the Nicolas Roeg film and Bowie’s musical.

In the 1976 film, Newton decides to build his house at a spot where he makes brief contact with early American settlers. Another vision of one of his kind ascending from a lake toward the sky prompts him to sell all of his patents and begin work on the space craft. The reality of these visions is even validated by others, such as Oliver Farnsworth going to the site of Newton’s landing on Earth moments before it happened. Others have an uncanny awareness of Newton as much as Newton is uncannily aware of other things.

With so much investment in real visions, Newton’s obsessions with alcohol and television resemble misguided logic. Visions or prophecy are conceptually similar to remote viewing. It makes sense that Newton would investigate other means of “seeing things” that are not present in front of him. The logic would be similar to that of a psychonaut who knows they have seen something real and is trying to see more through experimentation. Newton is also a foreigner to Earth, so it makes sense for him to be blindsided by alcohol and (local human) television.

Roeg’s film and Bowie’s musical tell stories that turn on visions. In particular, the importance of true visions and the danger of false visions.

The musical called Lazarus is a continuation of the Roeg film. The fact that David Bowie took the initiative in 2013 to solicit Enda Walsh to co-write this project begs certain questions. It would not have made sense for Bowie to feel entitled to the novel that Walter Tevis wrote. But it would be understandable if Bowie felt a sense of possession or belonging with the 1976 movie that he starred in.

Another essential factor was Bowie’s love of storytelling and creative experimentation. He wrote the lyrics for 1974’s Diamond Dogs using a variation of the cut-up and fold-in technique pioneered by William S. Burroughs. Around the time Diamond Dogs was released, Rolling Stone printed a conversation between Bowie and Burroughs. Decades later, Bowie used the cut-up and fold-in method of generating ideas for the 1.Outside album.

Most famously, though: David Bowie broke ground with his use of fictional characters. Ziggy Stardust was a character that Bowie took onstage and into interviews. A fan base became attached to Ziggy and, immediately before Diamond Dogs, something had to give. Bowie had become almost debilitatingly attached to embodying Ziggy which- combined with the character’s popularity -quickly began to be suffocating. The concert recording called Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars: The Motion Picture captured the very last concert with Ziggy.

After that fateful 1973 Odeon Hammersmith performance, many of his characters were handled differently. Halloween Jack from Diamond Dogs was little more than a change of clothing and a line in one song. The Thin White Duke was the next strong, distinct personality but the Duke’s volatility made him unwieldy. 1.Outside featured six named characters against a cyberpunk backdrop. Bowie said at that time that multiple simultaneous characters were less of a psychological risk. Ziggy, as a solitary presence, once threatened to overwhelm him. The large cast of 1.Outside divided the energy and thereby allowed Bowie to come and go from their world as it suited him.

And then there are the ways in which Bowie’s most famous persona would have effected the expectations of those seeing the movie at the time it was released. Ziggy was an alien that humans make first contact with in the final five years of their existence. He is deified to disastrous effect. Thomas Jerome Newton is an alien that comes to Earth in the hopes of using its resources to save his home world. Both are aliens who meet their fate on Earth. Both stories have apocalyptic stakes. An argument could be made that Aladdin Sane and Diamond Dogs chronicle the final era of Earth’s history. The events of the final five years, perhaps.

Bowie’s presence alone would have been a reason why many would go and at least “check it out.” It may have been obtuse for anyone to say so out loud, but a lot of those early viewers probably felt like they were watching David Bowie: The Movie. While Ziggy may have primed audience expectations, the character invented by Tevis bore a similar name to another Bowie persona: Major Tom. Like Mary Lou’s Tommy, Major Tom also left his planet and became stranded.

Here, we hit upon one of the differences between the 1976 The Man Who Fell To Earth and Lazarus. In both stories, Tommy is an alien attempting to co-exist with humanity. In the 1976 film, he has just arrived and is figuring everything out the hard way. He has a clear emotional and ethical frame of reference from his home world and he expresses this, in human terms, more than once. Sometimes, Tommy speaks over the heads of his human companions and collaborators…other times, he speaks plainly and the human characters still feel blindsided.

In one exchange with Farnsworth and Bryce, marriage and children come up. Newton is surprised to hear that Bryce has a family but rarely sees them. His reaction is quiet but it is also plainly emotional: “A man should spend time with his family.” Concern for family is, of course, the whole reason why he is on Earth.

In another conversation, he hears that the secrecy surrounding his private engineering projects has given rise to speculation that he is building weapons. He sputters, incredulously, wondering why they immediately “assume it’s a weapon.”

In The Man Who Fell To Earth, these feelings and boundaries are intact and Newton is hyper-aware of how foreign Earth is to him. Lots of things upset and agitate him and he insulates himself whenever possible.

By the end of the movie, Newton has been abducted by humans, had his lenses fused to his eyeballs by human experiments and loses any chance of seeing his family again.

In Lazarus, Newton has spent decades being wounded and entrenched. His nerves have been fried and cauterized and he exists, seemingly, only for gin, Twinkies and Lucky Charms. Only his self-isolation has stayed the same: as far as he’s concerned, humans have proven themselves dangerous.

The structure of Lazarus, predictably, contrasts inside against outside. Newton’s solitary life includes two other people: a personal assistant called Elly and a man called Michael, who appears to have a personal or professional connection with Newton. Michael’s portrayal in the Danish Aarhus production is very reminiscent of Bryce, as acted by Rip Torn in the ‘76 film (particularly with Rip Torn’s hair and makeup in the film’s final scene). Elly’s unhappy domestic life with her partner Zach forms a bridge between ‘inside’ and ‘outside’.

Bryce, having aged by the end of the 1976 film, while Newton stayed the same
Is it just me?
Michael, singing ‘The Man Who Sold The World’, played by Bjørn Fjæstad in a 2019 Tel Aviv performance at the Enav Culture Center. This performance also shares a lot with the then-contemporary Aarhus production. Part of the same run? Newton was played by a different person, though- an Israeli singer professionally known, simply, as Adam.

On the opposing ‘outside’ half, the central character is simply known as The Girl- later referred to as Marley. Marley and Newton are our leads but their awareness of each other is often private.

The narrative constantly teases a mysterious parity between Newton and Marley. I suspect this is because Marley is “seeing” Newton just like Newton “saw” the three main human characters of the ‘76 movie before meeting them (Bryce, Farnsworth and Mary Lou). As with Newton, Marley’s sight goes two ways. While she sees Newton, Newton also sees her.

This could make Marley a 4D telepath like Newton…or maybe even a survivor from Newton’s planet. Marley has the same analytical, itemizing ear for human language that Newton had in his early years on Earth: “I’m supposed to help you in some way.”

“Well, you can help me find another Twinkie.”

“I think it’s supposed to be ‘help’ in the caring sense of the word, Mr. Newton.”

“Oh…like a…very small nurse…?”

It’s interesting here that Newton now sounds as obtuse as Farnsworth, Bryce and Mary Lou once sounded to him, back in the seventies.

I’m taking the time to hammer out these details because recordings and reference materials are hard to come by. Synopses are common but not very useful. The official cast recording tells us which actor sings what and which character they represent. While I would have loved to have seen the show in person, not everything can run everywhere. Adam, from the 2019 Israeli performance, appears to have uploaded video of most the musical numbers on YouTube, relative to other channels. The best I could scrounge up was a full-length audio recording of the show, with dialogue, incidental audio cues and the rare audience noise here and there. Eventually, I was lucky enough to see the whole thing.

Many of the scene transitions have a pastiche feel to them. The spectre of bare-assed abstraction is kept at bay by frequent simultaneity of character arcs.

Michael C. Hall and Sophia Anne Caruso, during ‘This Is Not America’

Marley’s first appearance (represented in the first theatrical run and the cast album by Sophia Anne Caruso) resembles a haunting. Newton flinches and cringes around her and she never makes eye-contact with him, even if her hand ocassionally flails in his direction and touches him. Once, she dives into Newton’s arms, but it is not at all obvious who or what she is cuddling on “her end”. The whole time, she is singing ‘This Is Not America’, and its one of my favorite performances from the cast recording.

Newton, having fallen for multiple false visions already, does not take this experience at face value. We are, evidently, following Marley’s visionary/astral travels as she wanders into the home of Michael, who has discovered a separate, non-astral traveler in his apartment.

Marley’s travels, words and observations, from the latter half of her first Newton visit to her sighting of Michael and the stranger, are represented in the song ‘No Plan’. At this point in the story, ‘No Plan’ sounds like an answer to ‘Lazarus’. In ‘No Plan’, Marley is very much aware of her psychic abstraction and potential vulnerability. If ‘Lazarus’ is another timeless moment, than Newton starts the play abstracted beside past and present versions of himself and xeroxed fragments of loved ones. Marley, in her timeless state, knows everything about Newton and nothing about herself. Newton and Marley see the wilderness of time from opposite perspectives.

This prompted me to re-examine other uses of apparent simultaneity and pastiche, like ‘It’s No Game’ and ‘Absolute Beginners’. In each of those pastishes in which Newton is included, he may be ‘seeing’ the other characters through time and space. It becomes possible that Newton may even be aware of the events of musical numbers from which he is excluded- coming through, perhaps, as white noise in the background of his mind.

The ’76 film began with Newton making psychic contact, through time, with Oliver Farnsworth, Nathan Bryce and Mary Lou. What about Lazarus? Newton and Marley see each other. Elly and Michael know Newton personally, so they’re out of the running. What about the person Michael ran into in his apartment, with Marley watching? An apparent stranger, who only crosses paths with Newton later on? The prophetic trio in Lazarus could be Newton himself, Marley and Valentine the stranger.

Valentine, portrayed in the first New York run by Michael Esper

Yes, the whole prophetic-psychic contact thing is just my interpretation. There are supportive patterns, though. Much of Lazarus’s simultaneity begins to make sense when seen as visionary experiences across time. The reason it can’t be something more generalized is because there are degrees of awareness between the characters. A character could be visible to others, occasionally visible or invisible in the manner of a ghost or a witness from a psychic distance.

Newton’s mention of his visions also happen at narratively significant moments. He talks about them for the first time with Michael, before singing ‘Lazarus’. After this point, Newton will describe Marley to other people like Elly as something that’s probably not real. Slowly, his opinion changes. The next time he makes specific reference to his visions is near the end, in conversation with Valentine. He asks him if he killed Michael. When Valentine asks where the question came from, Newton says “I see things.”

Along with the placement of those two scenes, there’s the stage direction of the original run. Before the play started, Michael C. Hall (Newton) would be lying still on the stage. The actual beginning manifests around him. This, to my eyes, is a subtle echo of the scenes in which Newton can perceive things but not interact with them. That barrier alone implies that something is happening with Newton’s visions.

These associations and blind spots relate to specific relationships…yet other things take place beside and between them.

Newton and Marley are characters who can see things across time. Those who they can see can also see them (our two main characters, Elly and Valentine- even if those last two gain and lose awareness of Marley).

There are three other characters, though, who are able to approach and interact with anyone: the Teenage Girls. Many reviews equate them with a Greek chorus which is fair: they are almost always present and, when not interacting with other characters, they look and sound like the kind of everyperson / audience surrogate that backup singers normally portray in musicals. While they only take charge of the foreground twice, those are two of the most pivotal moments in the story.

In the first instance, Marley harries Newton into watching a reenactment of his last conversation with Mary Lou. Why? For “therapy”. She waltzes into his apartment followed by the Teenage Girls, one of whom walks up to Newton and apologizes in advance for any mistakes she might make portraying him. Newton corrects the Teenage Girl when she misremembers a line and then Marley (portraying Mary Lou) begins to address Newton himself in the reenactment: “You’ll be stuck in this apartment with me and I’ll always know you didn’t want to stay. Not with me you don’t. Nor for me, Tommy.”

At this point, Newton gets overwhelmed and walks out of the whole thing. Marley follows him and he asks her to tell him something only he would know. This appears to be a search for validation: to determine if Marley actually knows what she’s talking about or if this is some elaborate and sadistic manipulation. To his dismay, she relates his private memory of taking walks with his daughter on his home planet. They would rest on a hill, where he would tell his daughter stories about space, which he made up on the spot. When he was about to trail off, his daughter would tell him to “speak some more”.

Newton deflates under the realization that Marley is a genuine psychic outsider. He is on the verge of turning inward again when Marley says “(y)ou knew you’d end up like this. That’s why you let Mary Lou go. You don’t have to stay here any longer, Mr. Newton.”

1986 single

As Newton absorbs the bald reality of these words, we transition to the song ‘Absolute Beginners’. Here I gotta admit to being a bad Bowie fan: ‘Absolute Beginners’ never grabbed me. Yes, the sixties song-styling is a contrivance; the problem is that it sounds contrived. I never liked the song until I heard the version from Lazarus…and the Lazarus version is stunning. As far as I’m concerned, the Lazarus renditions of ‘This Is Not America’ and ‘Absolute Beginners’ are definitive (not to mention ear-worms).

On the far left is Elly, portrayed by Amy Lennox. Cristin Milioti was Elly early in the original run and it’s Milioti’s voice that’s on the cast album

There are a few narratively significant details about this scene. There’s more simultaneity, what with Marley and Newton singing to each other while Valentine sings backup and Elly sings the second verse. Perhaps most importantly, though- Newton commits to Marley’s plan to rescue him from Earth near the end of the song.

The Teenage Girls are also usually the most active in the songs sung by Elly and Valentine. While Newton does not have 4D visions of Elly, Marley does. Both of them have 4D visions of Valentine. The strongest argument for the Teenage Girls as “neutrals” would be the ‘All The Young Dudes’ scene, where Ben and Maemi sing lead. Even this scene has Elly and Valentine, though- they’re just being constantly ignored by Ben and Maemi. Valentine, being his usual manic and easily offended self, corners Ben and Maemi in the bathroom with Marley in tow. Things move fast from here.

A brief clip of Bowie’s original ‘Sound and Vision’ recording plays while Valentine stabs Ben and Maemi to death while Elly cringes in the opposite corner of the bathroom, holding still enough to blend into the scenery. After Valentine flees the scene, the lighting changes and Elly slowly rises to her feet, singing ‘Always Crashing in the Same Car’. This is one of the most beautiful song transitions in the whole play, especially as portrayed in the original New York production. Elly is as still as a statue and, once she’s alone, her first movements are when she sings “(e)very chance, every chance that I take” as she stands up.

The pose that Elly is holding for the entire scene reminds me of Bowie’s miming during the 1974 American tour in support of Diamond Dogs. The scene takes place in a bathroom but the fridge is an ever-present, reoccurring prop. The blue hair and the sequined dress are also very Diamond Dogs.
Yes, my closest example was the booklet for the CD version of David Live.

‘Always Crashing in the Same Car’ is one of the show’s most powerful moments in both versions I was able to find (New York and Denmark/Israel) but the next song, ‘Valentine’s Day’, is a definite win for the New York production.

Denmark / Israel. Valentine portrayed by Mathias Flint. Things stay rather stationary from this point on. The mechanical movement of the wings and Valentine’s militaristic dress made it easy for me to imagine him wearing a mech suit. I guess that impression depends on whether the mechaical movement of the wings is intentional or just a consequence of the prop. Another factor was the cyber-punky, apocalyptic scenery
New York. Esper’s Valentine. Notice how his black, shadowy wings dwarf both him and Newton. The only thing that stands out is the pale on Valentine’s face, turning it into a little floating white dot
“(i)t’s in his tiny face! It’s in his icy heart! It’s happening today! Valentine! Valentine!”

I could go on about the differences between the productions. The Denmark/Israel show appears more invested in Newton building a literal rocket. The inclusion of Newton as an active participant in the ‘All The Young Dudes’ scene creates the impression that it’s taking place in Newton’s apartment. The only reason I can imagine for Ben and Newton to know each other would be if Ben is either a wealthy engineer or a wealthy tech investor who is helping build the rocket. This would also mean that the rocket drawing on the floor of the stage is non-literal. In the New York production, the rocket drawing is just a drawing on the floor. The New York version also takes pains to emphasize that Valentine and Marley followed Ben and Maemi to a random nightclub. Newton is not present- just “seeing” events unfold from a distance.

While we’re talking about Valentine, his contrast to Newton and Marley is striking: the stage direction and the behavior of the actors in the New York performance establish that the 4D visions are a major plot device. As surely as Marley and Newton’s visions are real, Valentine’s instincts are all wrong. He slides quickly into hero-worship, during which he’ll vocalize delusional memories of things that never happened, such as Michael coming out as gay and being rejected. Valentine also has virtually no boundaries which makes it very easy for him to fall in love and lust. Give him some rejection, though, and the momentum swings in the other direction. This is usually what happens just before he kills someone.

As he sings ‘Valentine’s Day’, black balloons drop from overhead. The Teenage Girls rush onstage and start popping them, leaving only one which Valentine uses as a prop in the next dialogue scene. Near the end, they start doing their usual backup singer thing with the “yeah”s and “Valentine, Valentine”s. The Teenage Girls are also very active when Valentine sings ‘Love Is Lost’ and Elly’s performance of ‘Changes’.

Then, well…there’s the ending. This is the second instance of the Teenage Girls entering the foreground. Or, more accurately, a Teenage Girl. She is usually listed as Teenage Girl 1 and she puts her hands on Newton- with Valentine -in an attempt to make him stab Marley. This is also the first time we see Valentine and Marley interact with one another. As this is happening, Newton and Teenage Girl 1 are singing ‘When I Met You’.

Marley only begins to recover memories in the final scene, when Valentine enters Newton’s apartment.

Marley: “I was alive once. I was a real girl.”

Valentine: “And what else?”

Marley: “I was cut down a mile from my house and buried in the ground. And not properly dead- I was lying there. My eyes closed. With no real future(…)I’m sorry…but it’s not me who’s going to get you to the stars but it’s you who will help me die properly.”

When was the last time the Teenage Girls took charge of a scene? Just before ‘Absolute Beginners’ when Newton finally agreed to cooperate with Marley’s idea for conjuring a psycho-ceremonial spaceship. Marley, Newton and the Teenage Girls participated in a reenactment. Perhaps the scene with Valentine, Marley, Newton and Teenage Girl 1 is also a reenactment. It seems significant that Marley began recovering memories once Valentine showed up.

Before this point, I was attached to the interpretation that Marley is Newton’s daughter, since the continuity only prepares us to expect Newton’s species to have the 4D visions. What happened to Newton’s planet, though? Presumably it died out, after Newton failed to convey water there in the seventies. His daughter may have been ‘cut down’ in such an event but that doesn’t seem likely. Let us not forget the serial killer with a preference for blades.

As Newton only comes around after the prior reenactment, Marley only remembers her name after this one. I’m not going to say that Marley was canonically Valentine’s first victim but it sure looks like it. Her apparent age may be significant to- she could have been of an age with Valentine. Perhaps he killed her when they were in high school together. This would give significance to some of the lyrics in ‘Valentine’s Day’ (a song about a fictional school shooter that Bowie originally wrote for the album The Next Day, around 2012-2013).

The transformation after ‘When I Met You’ is even more dramatic than the ‘Absolute Beginners’ transformation but I’m not going to get into that just now. I’m still not altogether sure how to interpret the very last story beats and the very last musical number.

One of Newton’s visions in The Man Who Fell To Earth
Marley and Newton, singing ‘Heroes’ (the track listing on the cast album does away with the irony quotes)

Remeber when I first mentioned that the ’76 film started with psychic contact with Farnsworth, Bryce and Mary Lou? I don’t think my first idea about a Lazarus triad was wrong so much as incomplete. Marley and Newton see each other and both of them see Valentine. Distinct from Newton, Marley could be said to have her other own set of three: Newton, Valentine and Elly. Since I saw the Denmark/Israel footage first, I briefly entertained the idea that Newton also had a distinct set of three: Marley, Valentine and Ben, what with him helping to build an actual rocket.

I am tempted to treat the New York production as canonical, though, since it was the version that had the most input from Bowie just before his death. While Marley seems to have her own unique set of three, the set shared by herself and Newton looms larger.

What was the deal with the ’76 triad, again? Two of them were directly explicable: Farnsworth the patent lawyer and Bryce the engineer. Mary Lou was a wild card. In Lazarus, Marley and Newton are the first two and they’re explicable because they glimpsed each other across time. Valentine is then the obvious wild card. Then there’s the three Teenage Girls who are the only characters capable of interacting with everyone else. One of those Teenage Girls helps Valentine attack Newton and Marley, almost as if she’s the influence behind the ‘wild card’ phenomenon.

This external influence would have been present behind Mary Lou, in that case. Consider how this informs our earliest diegetic glimpse of Mary Lou- a suitcase of her clothes under Newton’s bed, first seen when Newton sang ‘Lazarus’. Later, when Elly discovers this, she assures Newton that he has the right to “play dress-up” in the privacy of his own home.

This could be a throwaway gag…but this brief moment of equating Newton with the owner of the clothes echoes something else. Whenever Newton tells Marley that she’s a hallucination, he finds he is addressing a very confused Elly. Elly later wears the clothes in a ham-fisted and aggressive attempt at seduction. And then the play’s last major plot shift may include some metaphysical force that brought Mary Lou to him in the first place.

The multiple instances of taking and replacing the case of clothes under the bed reminds me of the music video for ‘Look Back in Anger’. The song accompanies a narrative of Bowie painting a picture of an angel. The more he adds, the more his own flesh gets sapped.

The last image of the video is Bowie crawling under a bed. Perhaps that association is superficial. Either way, I thought of the ‘Look Back in Anger’ video every time someone pulled out or put back the clothing. All of these clothing-related *ahem* layers are potentially affected by the nature of the force that sings ‘When I Met You’ with Newton.

I could keep going about the possible interpretive layers. Lazarus is a beautiful show that is worth seeing, either through video or theater. Lazarus is worth analyzing in depth but this is not where our buck stops. I went over it in all this detail because Lazarus is the story that provided David Bowie with the point of departure for his very last album: Blackstar.

When I first heard Blackstar, it left me with a sinking feeling. Yes, David Bowie had just died and that was a factor…but it was also the album.

Early on, there are two songs that luxuriate in the amount of space they take up: the ‘Blackstar’ title track and a re-recording of ‘Lazarus’. Those are also, to me, the two most lyically ambitious songs on the commercial release of Blackstar. Neither of those songs are in a hurry, either. ‘ ‘Tis a Pity She Was a Whore’ bridges the gap between track one (‘Blackstar’) and three (‘Lazarus’). It is musically energetic and the lyrics seem (to me) less ambitious and more like a vehicle for Bowie’s voice to fit in with the instrumentation (John Ford literary reference notwithstanding). ‘ ‘Tis a Pity She Was a Whore’ was initially released in November of 2014, just after Bowie had finished working with the jazz band leader and composer Maria Schneider, with whom he created the original version of ‘Sue (Or in a Season of Crime)’.

All of the songs with the looser, more stream-of-consciousness lyricism sound as if they could have evolved from the Schneider collaboration. A lot of the jazz influence is crystal clear even if Blackstar dressed things up with a crunchy drum-and-bass emphasis. The blend of the two creates a cyberpunk effect. The Blackstar version of ‘Sue’ (track four, after ‘Lazarus’) definitely sounds like a slice of life from the version of LA that Ridley Scott created in Blade Runner. The original 2014 version, with its accoustic jazz emphasis, evokes Cowboy Bebop.

‘Sue’ is the turning point of the album. Only three songs remain: ‘Girl Loves Me’, ‘Dollar Days’ and ‘I Can’t Give Everything Away’. These songs are, pretty much, no longer or shorter than most of the album (well…except the title track and ‘Lazarus’). The emotional sketches become even more stark, though, which could create the impression that they are somehow shorter.

‘Girl Loves Me’ is playful and irreverent with dark images and implications creeping into the margins. Bowie sings “I’m sitting in the Chestnut Tree”. This refers to a location from Orwell’s Nineteen-Eighty-Four (which provided inspiration for Bowie’s Diamond Dogs album): a bar where the victims of the Ministry of Love congregate. Each of these listless, aging people have experienced the psychological torture and brainwashing culminating in Room 101: a staged confrontation with a personal fear, calculated to make you renounce all ties except Big Brother.

Eventually, both Orwell’s protagonist Winston and his love interest Julia end up getting cracked in Room 101 and both linger at the Chestnut Tree later on. In the Chestnut Tree, everyone knows what they have in common but they never discuss it. Slang from Anthony Burgess’s A Clockwork Orange is used; another near-future story about brainwashing.

These shadows are there in the margins while the music has a quality that I can only describe as playfully swerving. Sort of drunk and mischievious but on the brink of trailing off. Happily drunk at eleven in the morning, not long before the depression rebound at noon.

Things get dark with the song ‘Dollar Days’. This…is hard for me to put into words but I’ll try. It has a longing quality that upsets me. It worms its way into my head when I’m suddenly hit the reality that I’ve lost someone and I’ll never see them again. And I’m not just talking about Bowie. Recent griefs, in the last few years, were made worse for me by this song not leaving me the fuck alone.

‘Blackstar’ and ‘Lazarus’ are like the delicacies of deep, secure and trusting confidence. An articulation of inner truths that cannot bear to be spoken too loudly. ‘Dollar Days’ is pain that makes you forget you were ever capable of anything as lofty as imagination or understanding.

‘I Can’t Give Everything Away’ introduces the positive rebound but it’s an exhausted, relieved positivity. The lyrics are sketches of moments like the last two songs but things still get pretty lucid…maybe more lucid than I would like: “(s)eeing more and feeling less / saying no and meaning yes / this is all I ever meant / this is the message I have sent”. No, we’re not in the same pit of sadness as ‘Dollar Days’ but the notes of relief…well…they complicate things. And the relief is palpable. There’s a harmonica part in the beginning, as in ‘A New Career In A New Town’ from Low, and the chilled out, free-roaming vibe is similar. In a beginning-to-end listening, ‘I Can’t Give Everything Away’ leaves one of the more complicated impressions.

Some disclaimers before moving on: this is the version of Blackstar that Bowie released into the world. The worst thing I can say about Blackstar is that it’s emotionally challenging- and this is not a weakness. Art is allowed to be somber. Perhaps its the nature of that emotional complexity that makes me feel things like: “This is a little much…can’t we take a few steps back?”

Sometimes the anwer is no.

If Blackstar is a dark album, it is entitled to remain one.

I encountered a separate version, though.

Yes it’s a bootleg and yes it came out after Bowie died. 2017, to be exact. This is a cassette tape made of clear, glittery plastic, labeled ‘SPECIAL EXTENDED LIMITED EDITION 2017’ on the cover. On the back of the case, there is the star image from the Alexander Hamilton musical. It was distributed from an Italian source and it cannot be traded on Discogs. On the Discogs website, they say they only refuse to support trading items due to objectionable content or copyright violation. Unless Blackstar is shockingly offensive to someone, I suspect we’re dealing at the latter.

This cassette tape differs from the commercial release of Blackstar in two ways: the three other songs Bowie wrote for Lazarus are inserted between ‘Girl Loves Me’ and ‘Dollar Days’ and it closes with the original, jazz-centric version of ‘Sue (Or in a Season of Crime)’.

The three additional Lazarus songs were rerecorded during the Blackstar sessions and were left off, in the end. Years after Bowie died, they were commercially released on the No Plan EP.

You could pretty much make this playlist with your own music library. If you got Blackstar and the No Plan EP, just plop’em between ‘Girl Loves Me’ and ‘Dollar Days’. Maybe throw the original ‘Sue’ onto the end, if you feel like it. That last part is the most negligible. I like the original ‘Sue’ but putting it at the end like that feels like a pallette cleanser. It’s nice but obviously unnecessary. Sometimes it can hit like a reply to the earlier ‘Sue’ which is neat. The three other songs and their placement change the whole flow of the album, though.

Before I saw Lazarus, I felt that Blackstar relied on the associative impressions between songs. Each one is self-sufficient but each one also has a linear association with the music before and after. It starts with a glimpse of the beyond, goes back to ordinary life and then another glimpse; shorter than the last. The narration goes through a grieving cycle in the absence of a third.

Before the playful ‘Girl Loves Me’ can transition to the sad-drunk ‘Dollar Days’, a third introspective beat occurs with ‘No Plan’. Since I had years of listening to the commercial Blackstar beforehand, I had long thought of it as an album “narrated” by one perspective. It is comparable to an experimental film with one character in either one or two locations. Not only does ‘No Plan’ provide another introspective beat to go with ‘Blackstar’ and ‘Lazarus’ but it almost feels like a scene change. Maybe a cut to a second person. Yes, that’s the job it does in the musical: Newton sends out a beacon with ‘Lazarus’ and Marley pings back with ‘No Plan’. But the transition from ‘Girl Loves Me’ on the 2017 Italian bootleg is so different that it creates the same effect: a new place, a new person or a new development from the original protagonist.

After I saw Lazarus, there was something about the structure that stayed with me. The play alternates dialogue skits with musical numbers. This surprised me, since Bowie has said in the past that he prefers musicals that are sung-through: meaning no conventional dialogue. One hundred percent of it occurs through music. In a 2021 Rolling Stone interview, Lazarus director Ivo Van Hove said that the music was meant to integrate with the spoken dialogue. Songs like ‘Absolute Beginners’ involves Newton and Marley and the scene they share. Yet it also involves Elly and Valentine, who are not present. As Valentine sings ‘Love Is Lost’, Ben and Maemi are dancing in colorful film projections.

In other words: every song is “spoken”- even the ones with only a single character. When Newton sings ‘Lazarus’, he is convinced he’s alone and is surprised to find that he isn’t. Even Marley seems a little abstracted when she first appears- slowly becoming aware of Newton as she sings ‘This Is Not America’. I know I said ‘No Plan’ was like Marley’s answer to ‘Lazarus’- and it is -but it’s a delayed answer. She’s half-alone, like Newton. As Newton was surprised to find Marley listening, Marley is surprised by the apparitions of Newton, Michael and Valentine. All you gotta do to create infinite layers of who is adressing who is to introduce 4D telepathy as a plot device. It’s also an easy device with which to introduce the simultaneity of character arcs- as if to be psychic is to hear everything, all the time, even if it mostly sounds like static.

Lazarus relies on an AB rhythm with its music and scene transitions. Blackstar has something similar going on, although it’s back-and-forth reciprocity only holds through the first four songs. The rest of the album from that point takes place while waiting for a third encounter that never happens.

The addition of ‘No Plan’, ‘Killing A Little Time’ and ‘When I Met You’ struck me as a return to the AB rhythm. It could just as easily be the other side of the wall, though. More specifically- if the narrator is left hanging from ‘Girl Loves Me’ to ‘I Can’t Give Everything Away’, then maybe ‘No Plan’ to ‘When I Met You’ is the other side of the isolation. The other person who is left hanging.

More superficially, it’s just comforting hearing the lyrical excess of ‘No Plan’ through ‘When I Met You’ because so much of Blackstar is tense and withdrawn. It evens out the album’s rhythm but it also changes it deeply. The gut-punch of ‘Girl Loves Me’ through ‘I Can’t Give Everything Away’ is robbed of its urgency.

What makes the original Blackstar so tense is that the angst is a creeping intuition. One effect of the three song addition is giving specific voice to the angst with the song ‘Killing A Little Time’.

‘When I Met You’ is neither the first time Valentine has been in Newton’s apartment nor the first time the two have met. Earlier in the play, a subplot develops around a relationship between Elly and Valentine. When they first meet, Valentine convinces Elly to introduce him to Newton. When they meet, both Valentine and Elly start peppering Newton with questions about the drawing on the floor (“I drew something awful on it” as the feller says) and his mental health. Newton’s last encounter with human medical attention ended with the worst trauma of his life so he bristles, leading us into ‘Killing A Little Time’.

In the original Blackstar album, the narrator’s suffering is very reactive. The anger of ‘Killing A Little Time’ allows him to claim ownership of his pain which makes the end easier to bear. The more I think about this, though, the more I wonder if there are other factors.

The most obvious theme shared by both Lazarus and Blackstar is sacrifice. Blackstar discusses this in more emotional terms but both works touch on ceremonial sacrifice. The ‘Blackstar’ music video shows the corpse of an astronaut falling toward a planet. It is found by a girl with a tail who discovers, once she looks inside the helmet, that the skull is encrusted in jewels. Either the skeleton was venerated where it lay at one time or it just “is” what it is. Either way, she brings the skull to a village where a religious awakening happens. According to the lyrics “(s)omething happened on the day he died / spirit rose a meter then stepped aside / somebody else took his place and bravely cried / ‘I’m a Blackstar’/ how many times does an angel fall / how many people lie instead of talking tall / he trod on sacred ground he cried aloud into the crowd/ ‘I’m a Blackstar'”

The logic of ceremonial sacrifice is apparent: something is sent across in exchange for something else. In ‘Blackstar’, the mystery behind the bejewled skeleton creates an opportunity. It cannot speak for itself so others attempt to speak for it. They attempt this with nothing more than boldness and imagination: “I can’t answer why / just go with me”. The words of this person contain an interesting echo: “I’ma take you home / take your passport and shoes”. Usually, you don’t need your passport and shoes if you’re going to one place and staying there. Not to mention: removing your shoes is necessary spiritual grounding for many magical and ceremonial workings. Before the first repetition of the “something happened on the day he died” lines, Bowie sings “I want eagles in my daydreams / diamonds in my eyes”. These could simply be the fantasies of one claiming to fill the void of the corpse but “diamonds in my eyes” sounds like a passive reference to the jewel-covered skull. It furnishes splendid visions but there remains a genuine mystery at work. To want diamonds in your eyes is to commit to something sight-unseen.

Ziggy Stardust, Major Tom and Thomas Jerome Newton have something in common: all three were sacrificed to the outer darkness, never to return. Yes, there is exploratory and visionary abandon and the joy of discovery- all the romantic, escapist bells and whistles. The problem is bringing your discoveries home. In the meantime, how are those behind the sacrifice rewarded? Newton created revolutionary new engineering patents for governments and corporations to sit on and never use. Ziggy started a movement on Earth during the last five years of its existence which turned into just another distraction. If Aladdin Sane and Diamond Dogs cover the aftermath, then things apparently got darker from that point on. Major Tom got his own miserable follow-up in the song ‘Ashes to Ashes’.

With the first two, the fault lies with the beneficiaries of the sacrifice while Major Tom is the author of his own suffering. This is not a unilateral process with a single player, nor is the individual exonerated.

Lazarus pushes a little further, though. Newton is still in “space”, never to return. Is he merely a burnout, like Major Tom? The play does not make him socially enviable. To Elly and Valentine, he is a target of ridicule, larceny and violence. What even happened to him, in the end?

I, at least, like thinking of stuff like that. We know Marley was never physically present at all during the time frame of Lazarus. Valentine would not have left Newton in peace, either. But isn’t Newton immortal?

I think a more accurate term might be ageless. He will never age or experience physical illness. He is not immune to violence, though. In the ’76 film, he is physically traumatized. I can’t think of any reason why Newton would be immune to stabbing. Valentine may well be remembered as an ordinary serial killer, perhaps subject to urban legend: ‘did you ever hear his last victim was a humanoid alien’, etc.

Newton is held in contempt, exploited and murdered. But was he ‘wrong’?

Newton began to hope again after Marley put him through a reenactment. The ‘Absolute Beginners’ number is about him accepting that he has no further obligation to Earth and is free to take Marley seriously. This ultimately leads him to reenact Marley’s murder by Valentine. If Newton didn’t survive, then perhaps he escaped. He arrived on Earth via sacrifice. He only leaves by way of another sacrifice.

Then there’s the role of prophecy. Newton is only given reliable visions in snippets. What are we to make of the big picture? Was his planet meant to die out and was Newton meant to die on Earth, with only another ghost for company?

This is what makes interpreting the song ‘When I Met You’ so hard, whether it’s in Lazarus or Blackstar. At first listen, the song sounds bipolar. Whoever the narrator ‘met’ could be either the best or worst thing ever. They may have been pulled from misery that they took for granted, to relearn what affection and pain are. They either realized how bad things were or everything got worse. And we don’t know which.

The addition of the three songs on the Italian cassette tape makes the build up to the conflicted ending more approachable. The narrator is dwarfed by an unanswerable question in ‘When I Met You’ and then begins the movement through ‘Dollar Days’ to ‘I Can’t Give Everything Away’.

What the three songs offer are the lucidity of an inside view. Should we be so quick to ignore the outside view, though? If the addition of those three songs gives an authorial statement from the ‘inside’, what about the ending of the original Blackstar? We don’t hear the narrator’s internal monologue. With Bowie’s lyrical sketches, it’s more like seeing him than listening to him.

The idea of adding the No Plan EP rerecordings to Blackstar changed the album for me, for awhile. I loved hearing the narrator speak up a bit in the second act. I appreciate what this brings to a relistening but I also realize that Bowie had a beautifully visual mind that we are poorer without.

Here’s a few final thoughts. Don’t worry, it’s short.

https://www.rollingstone.com/feature/beat-godfather-meets-glitter-mainman-william-burroughs-interviews-david-bowie-92508/amp/

https://www.discogs.com/release/9656708-David-Bowie–Blackstar?srsltid=AfmBOooXpV073TO0E9iR5QKHvHIKs3zczAPlg1hwfT5A2PkQ9oVzphSA

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/david-bowie-lazarus-musical-1111847/

El Camino!

The Breaking Bad movie El Camino debuted last night and it was refreshing to see more of what Jesse Pinkman alone brought to the Vince Gilligan mythos.

In my “reading” (and according to many other people) Jesse was the emotional and pro-social point of empathy in a defensive and calculating fictional world. After Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul, moving to a more humane protagonist is a good decision.

This is given dimension by how a plot is typically set up to guide or provoke a character arc. One way to do this is through opposition. Walter White and Saul Goodman have important connections with other people that put them at odds with their negative character arcs….which paradoxically send them on their negative arcs.

Walter starts to cook meth for the benefit of his family and later becomes “the one who knocks”. Saul Goodman / Jimmy McGill turns his life around and gets a law degree to win the approval of his brother and later reconciles his reinvented self with his previous knack for petty crime. Vince Gilligan characters tend to start out enmeshed with others and end being isolated from them. Jesse Pinkman in El Camino experiences this formula from the opposite end.

Jesse is deeply connected to his friends, lovers and mentors and is on a path toward personal freedom while growing more deeply enmeshed with the world around him. I’m pretty sure me and most of the people watching the movie on launch day kept thinking that Jesse should run his ass off and never go back to any place where anyone would find him.

Instead he seeks out the few old connections he could go back to. He even touches base with his parents and the story’s final confrontation involves a welder that was hired by Jesse’s captors. Speaking of Jesse’s captivity, memories of Todd, possibly the member of the Neo-Nazi gang that Jesse despised the most, provide a pivotal plot point. In fact, two of his most important connections whom we know to be dead, Jane Margolis and Walter White, make appearances in rather emotional flashbacks near the end.

Jesse’s film ending with him both alone and more connected also opens the door for the first happy ending I ever saw in a Vince Gilligan story and it’s nicely convincing.

Also, as usual, the Breaking Bad creative team is great at creating a sense of place. Two of my favorite movies (which I still find difficult to watch at times) are Mysterious Skin and Boys Don’t Cry and, as someone who grew up in a low-income area in the early nineties, I was pleasantly surprised by how much those two films would get right with their set design or shooting locations. El Camino doesn’t tug on my nostalgia to the same degree but the Breaking Bad team nonetheless has delicious attention to detail, especially in the end at Kandy’s Welding.

I was watching this with my SO and during the shootout she told me that the welder has a holster that’s not meant to be drawn from quickly. It would have been a lil cooler if they took advantage of that but I liked the ending anyway. Like I said, the happy ending is a very welcome change in the Breaking Bad fictional universe. And it has a cool closing credits song ^^

It Chapter Two review

Over the weekend I saw It Chapter Two with my significant other and I couldn’t have been more satisfied. Like many of us, I remember the made-for-TV movie starring Tim Curry very fondly but there’s no getting around the fact that it mishandled the novel’s ending. In all fairness, the novel does have famously challenging ending, but the dialogue and animatronics in the early adaptation are just terrible.

While Tim Curry’s performance was truly creepy and convincing and was an undeniable strength, I don’t think Curry could carry the whole weight of the film himself. So as a fan of the book (my favorite King story after The Dark Tower novels) I’m just very happy that there is now an adaptation that treats the source material with reverence while maintaining its own strength as a film.

I realize that not everyone perceives this balance. Negative reviews typically state that the film was too long and packed with too much meandering minutia. I, however, was very pleasantly surprised with the streamlined pacing and editing.

It is a book that regularly moves back and fourth between the events of 1957 and 1984 so, since the two recent films cover the events chronologically in separate halves, a lot of structural re-interpretation is necessary.

One thing that might strike a fan of the novel as odd is that the beginning of the second film feels very much like the earlier chapters of the book with Mike Hanlon making his phone calls to the other Losers.

All of these chapters have somewhat long digressions that paint vivid pictures of the Losers as adults before getting to the phone call and it’s consequences. In It Chapter Two, each one moves very quickly and we find ourselves at the meeting at the Chinese restaurant in short order. At this point I was actually starting to worry that the film might be awkwardly short, which luckily isn’t true.

A necessary part of these structural changes is that the scenes must serve different structural functions than they did in the novel. In the book, we don’t get the restaurant scene until the middle after we’ve had several very long and dramatic 1957 flashbacks. As a middle chapter featuring the reunion of the main characters, it does the job of tying together several plot lines and giving the reader a sense of overall perspective over the sprawling events that have happened so far.

In It Chapter Two, the restaurant is continuing the introduction of the adult Losers, giving the audience time to get to know them before proceeding with the story proper. As far as the audience is concerned, the adult Losers are new characters they need to be acclimated to.

While we’re on the subject of the restaurant scene, the fortune cookie apparitions were vastly improved over how they were presented in the original novel (this film actually improves on a few different things that King handled awkwardly which we’ll definitely be getting to).

Each cookie has a separate part of a message that the surviving male Losers are struggling to put together while Beverly is becoming frantic listening to them argue. Beverly is actually our affective anchor in this scene- pretty much the viewpoint character. The tension of the hysterical arguing builds quickly and then stops to breathe before the monsters in the broken cookie shells hatch. Absolutely delicious pacing.

This is also our first glimpse of another way in which It Chapter Two improves in its source material: Beverly as an adult is handled far better than in King’s novel.

The uneven way that Beverly is written in the book is particularly annoying to me since she starts off on such a strongly sympathetic and memorable note. Her vulnerability is expressed differently from the other male characters for both overt and understated reasons. Beverly’s personality contrasts with the rest of the Losers in the role her father plays in her fears and anxieties. Most of the Losers’ have fears that are deeply impacted by their parents except, perhaps, Richie (and his dad still seems frazzled from his energy level).

Ben’s mother dismisses his emotional needs by playing to his emotional eating, Eddie’s mother has Münchausen syndrome and has convinced him that he has imaginary illnesses, Bill’s parents blame him implicitly for the death of his brother and Mike is dogged by his father’s feud with Butch Bowers.

Beverly, meanwhile, has an alcoholic father that works long hours and sexual abuse is implied. She comes and goes from home as she will since her father is often either absent or indisposed.

In modern terms, she’s a latch key kid. So while she lives in fear of her father and his unpredictable violent outbursts, she has nonetheless experienced more independence than the rest of the Losers and is better at spur of the moment decision making.

Perhaps for those two reasons, she has natural chemistry with another Loser of contrasting influences: Richie Tozier. Richie is impulsive to the point of being socially obtuse but is also a compulsive attention seeker. Both Beverly and Richie also seem to have a kind of easy access to solitary autonomy which may come from their respective alienation. This rapport between them is one of the strong, early indications that Richie’s manic sense of humor protects a serious vulnerability of his own.

This shared alienation between Beverly and Richie (largely during the theater scene) is one of the original novel’s most successful moments of subtlety. It’s an exchange that perfectly exemplifies showing and not telling.

Perhaps, since King pulled that off so well early on, he felt compelled to avoid explanations with Beverly as an adult to the point of making her obtusely blank- nearly featureless at times. For whatever reason, King could only write one chapter with adult Beverly doing interesting things on her own initiative and it was her first appearance.

While we’re on this subject, I think It the novel had two big experiments with characterization: Beverly Marsh and Henry Bowers. At least, the characterization of Beverly and Henry is executed differently than nearly all other characters in the book.

I’ve already outlined a few reasons why Beverly stands out from the other Losers during the childhood segments. As an adult, King seems allergic to lucidly pinning down character mechanics with Beverly. Like I said earlier, it’s possible that, since he succeeded so well at showing instead of telling with Richie, Beverly and Ben at the theater, that he became anxious about being too frank. The memory that Beverly has of orgasming at the sight of birds on a power line is particularly obtuse. At the risk of sounding misandrist, it almost seems like something a man would think who believes that female sexuality is fundamentally mysterious and therefore portrays it as a series of non-sequiturs.

Granted, lots of things seem very mysterious on a subjective level, but no other character gets the same explicit attention paid to their budding sexuality that Beverly does (a possible exception being Patrick Hockstetter). When Beverly is an adult, it’s as if Stephen King wanted very badly to get into her head but couldn’t quite pull it off. To me, it looks obtuse, but it’s also very possible that every single nuance is intentional, which is why I singled Beverly out as a glaringly experimental character.

It Chapter Two got rid of the unnecessary ambiguity along with a narratively distracting love triangle between Beverly, Bill and Ben. With a film this plot-heavy, anything that can be streamlined should be and the straightforward romance between Beverly and Ben really worked for the best. A shadow of the love triangle was maintained through Beverly’s mistaken belief that Bill wrote the “January Embers” poem and the kiss at the end of the first movie, but in general Beverly and Ben are the only two members of the romance.

Jessica Chastain also brought a personal magnetism that made her portrayal of Beverly an intuitive point of empathy for the audience along with Bill, Mike and Richie. The script for It Chapter Two also allowed Beverly to maintain her lucid apprehension and independence from childhood.

Streamlining the romance between Beverly and Ben is desirable not just for keeping stray plot threads to a minimum but also because the meandering, unclear portrayal of her sexuality and romantic pulls in the book is weirdly sexist. Or at least weirdly sexualized. Once or twice, novel Beverly will say things like “you were all my boyfriends back then” or something equivalent that is unclear enough to not be taken literally but romantic enough for the possibility to be real.

This seems to allude to the sewer scene at the end- an explanation that barely makes it any less weird than if it had none at all. I also don’t feel like I need to spell out why hyper-sexualizing the one female protagonist is regrettable and slovenly. And then there’s a sexual encounter between Bev and Bill whose plot or character function has never been clear to me. Given how visual the scene was, though, I can only assume it was important to King himself. Not to mention, Beverly’s easy relaxation into the romantic and sexual sharing between the male Losers (*giggle* male Losers) has no consistency with her childhood characterization. All of this is blessedly absent from It Chapter Two.

While Beverly in the novel is an experimental character, she’s an experimental character with rather few risks (to say nothing of that memorable little scene in the sewer). From a trope / narrative standpoint, she has no inherent tendency to rock the boat, but the experiment fails in spite of that.

Henry Bowers, meanwhile, comes with a handful of glaring narrative risks. The first and most obvious of these are his flirtations with becoming a one-dimensional spooky villain. The last time I read It, I remember thinking that he was on thin narrative ice in the scene with the rock fight. Especially when King tries to highlight his growing instability by describing him, as he hangs from a fence he’s climbing, as a “baleful spider”.

In the childhood segments, any sympathy Henry elicits is purely by implication. One may conjecture that he was unlucky and tormented by virtue of having a physically and psychologically dangerous parent, not unlike some of the Losers, but we scarcely see much of that from Henry’s own point of view. As an adult though, we get to see behind Henry’s eyes for the first time.

So far from the bristling menace of the childhood Losers, adult Henry is a terrified, vulnerable patient at the Juniper Hill mental hospital outside of Derry. From Henry’s perspective, we are given an interesting kind of characterization. Henry does not have the same kind of internal dialogues the other characters do: every word formed in the privacy of his own mind is clothed in the voices of others.

At its most abstract and generalized, this happens through the voice of the moon (Pennywise, obviously, but Pennywise can only work with what a mind is ready to offer her). Henry’s self-torturing thoughts happen in the imaginary voices of the Losers. Later, with the magic of Pennywise, Henry encounters an undead version of a childhood friend, Belch Huggins, that was constructed from his imagination.

And none of these imaginary vehicles for his thoughts have a two-way exchange with him: they either berate Henry or give him orders. While he is in a car with Pennywise, disguised as Belch, he starts to wonder if Belch holds him responsible for being left to die as a child. Henry attempts to apologize and the apparition simply turns its head and says “Just drive the fucking car.” This is as close as Henry ever comes to succeeding to “talk” to one or his mental mouth pieces.

Assuming that we often talk to ourselves in ways we are used to being spoken to, this clearly comments on the relationship between Henry’s internal life and how it’s been shaped by others.

While adult Beverly came out better in It Chapter Two than she did in the book, adult Henry rather lost out. Which is unfortunate considering how well-acted he was as a preteen in the first Muschietti It movie. The actor did just fine but the direction and editing just didn’t seem to have a lot of room for him. To the film’s credit, I was truly freaked out when Henry tracked down Eddie. I knew that Eddie survived the encounter in the book but Game Of Thrones has tempered my expectations of the willingness for on-screen adaptations to kill characters who don’t die in the source material.

Luckily, though, good pacing was the only reason to be startled by that scene. Henry Bowers’ involvement in the plot ends shortly afterward when Bill Hader’s Richie Tozier plants an axe in the back of his head as he attacks Mike Hanlon.

Which brings us to another noteworthy point of departure from the book. Like many stories in the haunted village sub genre (Silent Hill, Twin Peaks, ‘Salem’s Lot, etc.) the town itself constitutes a character of sorts.

In It, this was largely conveyed by the Interlude chapters that were written as journal entries and research documents done by Hanlon, with coverage of past visits Pennywise made to Derry. These Interludes gave us the story of the fire at The Black Spot, a World War II era bar for black military personnel. Mike’s father was a private stationed in Derry at the time and was present for it, and fans of The Shining may recognize a younger Dick Hallorann among the survivors. The Interludes also contain a retelling of a shootout prompted by the arrival of the Bradley Gang in the twenties and the explosion of the Kitchener Iron Works decades later.

Essentially, we get to know Mike as a narrator before we see him as a child become the seventh and final Loser. It Chapter Two attempts an inversion of his leader-scholar status by having him appear slightly unbalanced and maybe even dishonest. One narrative function this provides is that Pennywise is able to use Mike’s omission of the dangers of the Ritual Of Chud to drive a wedge between the Losers near the end and add a bit more drama to the final battle.

The way in which Mike learns about the Ritual itself helps streamline the plot somewhat, even if it partook of the wise visionary Native trope. Mike was able to see the arrival of the creature separate from the other Losers and relayed it back to the rest of them as adults. Specifically, to Bill, who later clues everyone else in. This enables the introduction and explanation of this concept to be an exchange between characters rather than just straight explication.

The Ritual itself was also portrayed very effectively: the Losers are separated into different, specialized temporal nightmares that they need to overcome in order to face Pennywise together. This is very good visual language that pins down something from the book that would have been nearly impossible to film otherwise.

I would almost go as far as to say that the visual unfolding of the final confrontation with Pennywise does more than supply images for the film to hang its hat on: it is potentially more compelling than what the novel describes. At least, it is more lucid and more accessible. Since the plot revolves around how Pennywise manipulates the fears of the Losers, the approach of desperate personal nightmares puts each character arc and it’s resolution on full display.

Speaking of character arcs, this might be a good time to mention the re-imagining of Richie Tozier.

Speaking purely as a fan of the book, I felt very validated by him being portrayed as gay. And his homosexuality is more than just hinted at in the film.  When we see Richie revisiting the heart he carved at the kissing bridge, it contains R+E, and there’s only one person that E could credibly be referring to.

As a fourteen year old reading the novel for the first time, I gravitated toward that interpretation simply because every character had conventionally heterosexual yearnings except Richie. I began to wonder more about it later since Stephen King seemed to struggle with fleshing out the specific nuts and bolts of the fears within Richie that leave him open to Pennywise.

When five of the Losers speak about Pennywise for the first time in the Barrens, they all share a story except Richie.  In a later flashback, we hear about the Paul Bunyan experience, which seems almost startlingly pedestrian after Eddie’s leper, Mike’s giant bird, Beverly’s bloody sink or Bill’s bloody photo album.  Even Ben’s recollection of the mummy is more interesting than the Paul Bunyan statue.  And it took until nearly half of the book to get to it, as if King knew it was something different but couldn’t quite pin down what.  If there is a commentary track on the DVD of It Chapter Two with Stephen King, I’d be interested to hear about anything he says about the process of creating Richie, although the plainness with which his homosexuality is made clear was probably a decision made by the screenwriter.

So it appears as if Stephen King wrote Richie knowing the way that Pennywise would exploit his fears would be different from the other Losers but wasn’t sure how exactly.  Richie’s mysterious but exceptional qualities continue to be apparent when the final confrontation starts and Richie’s onslaught was the attack that really turned the fight in the Loser’s favor.  Then there’s the easy access to independence as a child that seems to lead to a platonic bond with Beverly on top of the fact that he’s the only male Loser that doesn’t seem to have ordinary heterosexual desires or fantasies.  I’m not saying that homosexuality is the only thing that ties all of these traits together but you gotta admit it would fit the bill.

While I definitely have to cop to being happy over my adolescent fan theory being validated, I can see how this might not be totally welcome, especially since they chose to follow the book with Eddie’s death rather than going all the way with the romance.  And since many of the events of the book were switched around to serve new functions in this film, the murder of Adrian Mellon at the very beginning could prompt some viewers to look for a deeper LGBT thread in the film.  One of the Losers turning out to be LGBT could predictably satisfy that instinct. This was less of an intuitive prompting in the novel since it’s placement there was clearly intended to bookend the timelines with Pennywise’s first appearance in each: it begins with Georgie in 1957 and with Adrian Mellon in 1984.

In the end, this second half of Andre Muschietti’s film adaptation surprised me with how closely it followed the plot of the original book, stood on its own as a film and even improved upon the narrative weaknesses of the source material.  With so many book-to-film adaptations falling flat, something like It Chapter Two is a refreshing reminder of what could be done with the right creative team.

Dune and Alejandro Jodorowski

“Here lies a toppled god-
His fall was not a small one.
We did but build his pedestal,
A narrow and a tall one.”
-Tleilaxu Epigram

 

Lately I’ve been getting ready for a move which naturally entails going through your stuff and deciding what to keep and what not to. One hard fact of life that I’ve had to come to terms with more and more over the years is that books take up a ton of space and, as we bibliophiles know, our collections get harder and harder to move over the years. Especially if you’re like me and you love having physical copies of things. I’m even like that with music and movies- I just have to have the actual object with it’s artwork and anything else that might be packaged with it. And so…I’ve had to make some very harsh calls with my own library. One thing I decided I needed to come to terms with is that I needed to get rid of most of my paperbacks, especially the long series- beautiful hard backs excluded (and even the paperback rule had it’s exceptions, such as my Sandman comics and my William S. Burroughs and Victor Hugo collections). Since I’m only keeping the real keepsakes (signed copy of Blood Communion…a rare and out of print collection of Hugo poetry from the sixties…assorted precious vintage stuff…), I’ve had to really invest in my tablet to get digital back ups. Inevitably, I had to make a decision about my six Dune books by Frank Herbert. Would they get the paperback pass of Burroughs, Aligheri, Hugo and Neil Gaiman? Possibly. And then last night I visited a friend of mine who showed me the documentary Jodorowski’s Dune, which made the decision that much harder to make.

At a certain point in the film, Jodorowski says that he had not actually read Dune at the time that he pitched it as his next film. Nonetheless, he made certain creative decisions that seemed to indicate at least some thoughtful familiarity with the book, wild departures from the text and all. I was also charmed by how philosophically optimistic his reading(?) of the story was. The Dune novels are, fundamentally, a meditation on power. Within all of it’s other layered explorations of language, ecology, religion, politics and psychology is the discussion of power dynamics within those things. Out of all of those permutations of control, institutional power is the most common touchstone in the plot of every book.

In all fairness, Alejandro Jodorowski has not been alone in his reversal of the tone of Dune. I have to jump on a large bandwagon here and say that I think the David Lynch adaptation to be a complete train wreck for many reasons (Jodorowski thinks that as well and says so at the end of the documentary). I’m also aware that Lynch’s adaptation was the victim of studio meddling but, whether this was the fault of Lynch or the studio heads, one of the most deeply egregious errors in that film was the ending, when Paul Atreides conjures water on Arrakis.

To say nothing of the fact that it flies in the face of how Dune discusses the relationship between humans and the ecosystems in which they live (Paul terraforms Salusa Secondus, the secret home planet of House Corrino and the Sardaukar, as a way of destroying the brutal survival ethos of the Sardaukar and crippling their military might), it also introduces a truly random genre break…or perhaps world break. No in-world explanation is furnished for Paul’s ability to conjure rain- it therefore stands to reason that he did it because he was magic. Why would he be magic? Evidently, because he’s the literal Messiah- the dude is literally Jesus. Which speaks to another thing every adaptation to date has overlooked- the Bene Gesserit are after power consolidation just like everyone else.

In a way, the Bene Gersserit are the contemporary heirs of the machine overlords overthrown by the Butlerian Jihad. In the distant, nearly mythic past of Dune, humans were enslaved by artificially intelligent machines. An Islamic cleric named Serena Butler led a revolution against them and, from that point on, the creation of AI was forbidden by every religion and government. What the Bene Gersserit are doing, with their breeding program and use of the spice to awaken ancestral memories in women, is to create a human supercomputer. In essence, they are attempting to make a creature to subjugate the world, the difference is that it’s a human being. Ergo, they are the heirs of the machine overlords. Paul does not play completely into their hands, but in the end he became what they wanted him to be. In a sense, Paul Atreides is part of the same “rise of the machines” trope as Victor Frankenstein’s creation or the machines in The Matrix. The text also makes it clear that the Bene Gesserit also frequently manipulate religions on the planets owned by the inter-galactic feudal lords. Interpreting Paul as a literal Messiah reflects an appallingly lazy reading. At least, in the case of David Lynch, it seemed appallingly lazy. There were just too many other lazy decisions in the film to accommodate any forgiving context for Lynch’s ending.

What makes me prepared to distinguish between the philosophical optimism of Lynch’s and Jodorowski’s visions is the consistency of Jodorowski’s handling of the tropes. It’s obvious at a glance that Dune analyzes and deconstructs the myth of the dying and returning fertility god in the form of Paul Atreides, even if he’s not presented as a genuine god (no such thing exists in the novels). Alejandro Jodorowski was willing to break the genre consistency at least to the point of making Dune science-fantasy rather than science-fiction (high science-fiction, though it is). Jodorowski’s Dune would end with the death of Paul Atreides at the hands of Thufir Hawat (the documentary didn’t get into the nuts and bolts of Thufir’s motivation but on it’s face I’d love to see that unpacked somewhere) which would complete the sacrifice for universal redemption, ala Jesus, Baldur, Cybele/Attis, Osiris/Horus, etc. This would necessarily make Jodorowski’s Dune a standalone film. David Lynch, meanwhile, wanted to adapt more of the books at some point.

I don’t know how Lynch would carry out his reversal with Paul being a literal divine being, but I don’t see it going well. This may seem like a fine point, but for me that matters because Jodorowski’s rendering, while wildly divergent, would only take enough from the source material to make itself complete- Lynch, on the other hand, wanted to carry his inversion further into the rest of the series. Alejandro Jodorowski doesn’t make any bones about having a huge ego in Jodorowski’s Dune, but I think keeping his adaptation as a standalone story demonstrates a certain confident reserve, as if his vision is complete in and of itself and can exist alongside Frank Herbert’s original story. The standalone version is also neat because it covers the scope of the mythic arc and nothing else, which was what Jodorowski was fundamentally interested in.

It’s the specificity of this focus that I think gives Jodorowski’s vision of Dune more credibility than the version of David Lynch’s movie that we ended up with. The archetypal nature is established early on with a scene invented entirely by Jodorowski, involving the immaculate conception of Paul. This version of Leto Atreides is a eunuch, castrated by a bull. Jessica, meanwhile, is a witch, who pricks his finger and turns his blood into semen, with which Paul was conceived. Later on, Leto is dismembered by Piter DeVries, Osiris style, with Jessica and Paul disappearing into exile and completing the mythic parallel. While complication can be messy, simplicity has it’s own challenges and can often be trickier. If you like rock or pop music, think of your favorite rock or pop song: a rock musician often only has three to four minutes with which to capture your attention. Direct riffs on mythology need a similarly deft handling, however simple or abstracted an archetype may appear. When I read Dune for the first time, it occurred to me that Frank Herbert was one such talented person, particularly during the scene where Leto dies from his suicide capsule. The haunting legacy of a father felt by a son is something we’ve seen many times in many different stories, and at that moment I realized I was believing it, that Herbert had succeeded in bringing it to life. Tolkien had a deft hand at this as well, but that’s a subject for another entry. This delicate familiarity with myth would have made an Alejandro Jodorowski Dune film a very compelling meeting of the minds. Jodorowski and Herbert would have meshed as perfectly as David Cronenberg and William S. Burroughs had through the Naked Lunch film.

While it would have been a rich meeting between two scholars of religion and world history, Jodorowski’s different approach to the archetypes within Dune had a sharp contrast to Herbert’s. Along with the true nature of the Bene Gesserit and the fearful examination of power, Paul’s adherence to the arc of the tragic hero is also frequently overlooked. Tragic in the classical literary sense: the story is about a central weakness that eventually destroys the main character and turns him into a monster. Often, while reading the Dune novels, I was reminded of a line from Shakespeare’s Coriolanus: “Coriolanus has turned from a man to a dragon.” The first novel traces Paul’s journey as a young man vulnerable to manipulative forces beyond his awareness into a super-human theocratic precog. Over and over again he desperately searches for ways to escape the Jihad that he sees himself leading and ultimately succumbs to his own prophecy. Of all things, Paul Atreides frequently reminded me of Sephiroth from Final Fantasy VII. Paul’s dread of this destiny is what gives the duel with Feyd-Rautha all of it’s dramatic weight- Feyd-Rautha’s death seals the confirmation of Paul’s worst nightmare and his ugliest transformation. It’s also hard to overlook the role that Paul’s firstborn son played in this: while his infant son was definitely killed, he had every reason to believe that both his son and his wife were dead for much of the ending. As far as he was concerned, he had lost his roots on Arrakis and had nothing left but revenge, which propelled him to the imperial throne and the Jihad. He was only reunited with Chani after this fatal step had already been taken.

Another part of Frank Herbert’s handling of mythic tropes is his tendency toward deconstruction. The Bene Gesserit knowingly manipulate religions across generations and Paul is frequently reminded of the fact that he is walking into an artificial prophecy that’s been designed as a step toward consolidating power. The Dune novels also frequently use lengthy internal monologues and in-world texts that reflect specific, in-world interpretations rather than objective facts. This is something that either lures the reader further into the book or turns them off. This is complicated by the fact that in Frank Herbert’s fictional universe information literally exists. Ancestral memories are past from generation to generation. Our perspective on Paul’s prophetic abilities also speak to this. Other than the generations of selective breeding before he was born, the essential ingredient in Paul’s psychic awakening was his mentat training. Mentat computation can happen in the blink of an eye and often subconsciously. This ability is even more powerful and even more subconscious in someone like Paul, who was bred to be a human supercomputer. Some of his prophecies are clearly the result of powerful, subconscious information processing that can only consciously express itself as apparent prophecy. This, however, does not account for how Paul and other precogs can receive specific fragments of sense perception, a sight or a sound, from the future. Evidently, the information exists out there to be grasped by precognitive minds. As the ancestral memory phenomenon tells us, one’s subjectivity exists objectively, but that doesn’t make it any less subjective.

I hope I’ve made it obvious that I don’t think that the version of Dune that Alejandro Jodorowski wanted to make would have been a cinematic equivalent of the first novel: merely that the deviations that Jodorowski planned on making revealed an interesting awareness and perspective on the book’s subject matter. Later in Jodorowski’s Dune we learn that many of the concepts from the film were recycled later on for Jodorowski’s comic series L’Incal, which I am now determined to read. Diverse interpretations are also an inevitable part of how a book continues to live on after it leaves the mind of it’s creator. Sometimes, by force of contrast, a different interpretation can create different readings of the book by people who encounter the original text after experiencing a derivative. While Jodorowski’s reading of the mythic tropes threaded within Dune were starkly different from Herbert’s own rendering, it is something of a natural sequential echo, as Frank Herbert himself was very much concerned with the nature of myths and their ripples throughout culture and history.