December 24, 2019

"No one encouraged me to be a cartoonist.... I showed my work and they just said, 'I didn’t know you were this unhappy.'..."

"My dream was to be a working cartoonist for the Village Voice... Because that was Jules Feiffer, Mark Alan Stamaty, Stan Mack. There was something very idiosyncratic, very New York, about them, all social comment and not a gag panel. And the New Yorker cartoon was a gag panel. I liked that, but I had no interest in doing that. I didn’t see myself as part of that. I submitted because I thought, Why not? I was working for the Voice and for the Lampoon, and I thought I should try The New Yorker. It’s cartoons—same deal. I think it was a Wednesday—I called up and found their drop-off day, and I left my portfolio. And that’s pretty much what I’ve been doing ever since. I was absolutely flabbergasted and terrified when I found out I had sold something.... ... I went in to see [Lee Lorenz, the New Yorker’s art editor] and he pulled out a cartoon, and he said, ‘We want to buy this! Are you excited?’ ‘Yeah, I am,’ I said. I thought I might be dreaming. A little bit out of body. I noticed that the lights were very like my elementary school. I liked that it’s not exactly shabby but nothing trying to impress you. Places that are trying to impress me always scare me. They don’t impress me, but they scare me. He told me that Shawn [William Shawn, the magazine’s longtime editor] really liked my work. And I had no idea who Shawn was! I assumed it was a first name, someone named Sean, like Sean Connery, who somehow was allowed to like your work. I nodded. ‘That sounds good.’ I did meet him later, and he doffed his hat and I doffed mine, and I wondered why I was doing this."

From "Scenes from the Life of Roz Chast/In the past four decades, the cartoonist has created a universe of spidery lines and nervous spaces, turning anxious truth-telling into an authoritative art" (in The New Yorker).

Speaking of exciting scenes in the life of an artist, I selected that quote and cut and pasted it here before reading it to the end, and I was flabbergasted to see Sean Connery come up. It's so utterly random. The previous post, which I started writing because I was interested in Dennis Hopper's photography, moved through a sequence of things and ended up on Sean Connery. I'd just created a new tag for "Sean Connery" and added it retrospectively to 3 other posts. Sean Connery had popped up only 3 times in 16 years of writing on this blog, and now, this morning, in the space of a few minutes, he's popped up twice. All 5 of the Sean Connery appearances on this blog have been minimal and random. I'll list them in the order of importance — importance with regard to Sean Connery — with the least trivial thing at #1:

5. Roz Chast heard the last name "Shawn" and thought of the first name "Sean," as in "Sean Connery."

4. Darrell Hammond was identified (in 2011) as the SNL actor who impersonates "Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Donald Trump and Sean Connery."

3. Dream-casting a movie based on a new Sandra Day O'Connor biography in 2005, one commenter pictures "a cameo appearance from Sir Sean Connery as Robert Bork, who turns out to have been the arch-villain all along!"

2. This morning's discussion of the 1995 Sean Connery movie "Just Cause."

1. My revelation that I haven't seen a James Bond movie since the last Sean Connery Bond movie, "Diamonds Are Forever" ("It was 1971, and we thought James Bond was absurdly passé").

23 comments:

Ann Althouse said...

I don't have a Darrell Hammond tag and I'm not going to make one now, because if I do and he turns up randomly later this morning, I will have to reexamine my conception of reality.

Kevin said...

"It was 1971, and we thought James Bond was absurdly passé"

The progressive is concerned with what’s “in”, the conservative with what’s substantive enough to endure.

Rory said...

The last Connery Bond, of course, was Never Say Never Again

Ann Althouse said...

"The last Connery Bond, of course, was Never Say Never Again..."

Thanks. I guess Connery said never again and 12 years passed. Then he made another, and I didn't notice. 1983. I can probably say for a fact that I was never more busy in my personal life than in 1983, never less likely to notice extra movies that I wouldn't have any interest in seeing.

I had a 2 year old baby and was pregnant and gave birth to a second baby, I had a marriage, I was working in a Wall Street law firm, and I was applying and traveling to interview for law professor jobs.

Temujin said...

I was stopped on this one by the mention of Jules Feiffer, who was among my favorites for years. I used to browse through magazines (New Yorker?, Playboy?) to look for his comic drawings/commentary. And his play "Little Murders" was one of my favorites in my college years. The play, later made into a movie that turned out to be great and had a terrific cast including Elliott Gould (back when he was in his 3 year run as a 'sexy' star- which is funny), Marcia Rodd, Vincent Gardenia, the Great Alan Arkin, Lou Jacobi, Donald Sutherland, and others.

I think "Little Murders" was probably ahead of its time in some ways and could be more current in today's climate.

Sean Connery was not in the play or the movie.

Ann Althouse said...

I liked "Little Murders" and had just recently been thinking of watching it again (as part of my project of rewatching movies I saw in the theater when they were new releases long ago).

Temujin said...

I'm thinking the same thing. Time to re-watch it and see how it fits in today's Western Civ.

chuck said...

anxious truth-telling

Who can write that and not laugh. Great gag.

Lurker21 said...

Back in the Eighties I was very impressed by one of Stamaty's Washingtoons. A character is floating above Washington unsure of what to believe. What was real and what was fake? What was truth and what was spin? Which side to take? Which narrative to buy into? It said a lot about the age of spin that we live in.

I looked up Washingtoons and More Washingtoons recently and was disappointed. Standard left-wing stuff: contras, nuclear freeze, heartless Republicans, greedy arms manufacturers, dullard Reagan. Those were the issues back then for the left I guess, but it leaves the cartoons looking very dated and of limited appeal.

Jules Feifer, too, could capture the puzzlement at the modern world and the universe one week and then get pointedly ideological the next, but his work was less of the moment and its issues, so maybe his cartoons hold up better now.

Roz Chast has a more universal appeal, especially (and especially relevant this time of the year) when she does her nutty family cartoons.

Lurker21 said...

Kevin said...

The progressive is concerned with what’s “in”, the conservative with what’s substantive enough to endure.


That could be, but James Bond may just have been insubstantive enough to endure.

Narr said...

Synchronicity is amplified many orders of magnitude by the interwebs.

Connery is a mediocre actor, but there were some roles that only he could play well. As
cheesy as they are, the early Bonds are pretty enjoyable I think, and I'd throw in Zardoz and Outland.

Narr
I wonder how the Bond books read now . . .

Howard said...

I've introduced my 8 and 10 year old grandsons to Sean Connery James Bond movies. We watched the first four. They can't get enough of Bond James Bond. The Bond girl in Thunderball just died a couple days ago.

rcocean said...

You'd be forgiven for thinking James Bond was over after "Diamonds are forever" -one of the worst Bond movies. The franchise seemed to be out of gas, and had gone from being slightly cartoonish to grim self-parody. Roger Moore, kept the franchise going by turning it into a comedy-fantasy, he was the softest,wittiest Bond and never seemed to be in Danger. Its amazing the producers were able to keep the whole thing afloat until Danial Craig came along.

Ann Althouse said...

I'm just not interested in James Bond as a character. I saw "Goldfinger" when it came out, then "Thunderball," and "Thunderball" seemed boring to me and if I remember correctly, my friends. We just thought the whole thing was over. It was work going back and picking up "From Russia with Love" and "Dr. No," and after that it just never mattered. Only saw "Diamonds" because I was stuck somewhere with absolutely nothing else to do. Had zero expectations, so it wasn't as though that one made me give up on the series. I was tired of it from the second one I saw, which was "Thuderball." Seemed totally played out. I do remember enjoying "Goldfinger" though. Great opening credits.

loudogblog said...

The Bond films were not great cinema, but they had a charm to them. Like most film franchises, they got more uninteresting as the years went by. I was in a student film with Lana Wood about 10 years ago. She was in Diamonds Are Forever. (She played Plenty O'Tool; the woman they threw in the pool.) It was strange seeing her as a very young "girl-like" woman in the movie and then working with her as a much more mature woman. Her voice was lower, slower and more rough, but she still had the same fire in her eyes. She's had a very rough life and still lives alone. Fame was not kind to her.

narciso said...

in the miscast avengers remake with jude law, sean connery played the villain, it's rarely shown anyway,

rehajm said...

...if I do and he turns up randomly later this morning, I will have to reexamine my conception of reality.

Baader-Meinhof.

rehajm said...

Right full ruddah!

rcocean said...

Casino Royale (2006) just shows that if keep making movies about the same character over 35 years, you'll get back on track, eventually.

IRC, Thunderball made more $$$ than Goldfinger. People were expecting another "Gold finger" so they turned out, but peeps were disappointed and the thing never got back to the same level There are two problems with Thunderball. The villain is a bore, unlike Gert Frobe, and the ending underwater fight is dull. Why would anyone think an UNDERWATER Fight in slow motion, between a bunch of guys in scuba gear was exciting?

Thunderball is sorta like "Return of the Jedi". Everyone was hoping the third Star Wars film would live up to "The Empire Strikes Back" and it didn't. IT was disappointing

rcocean said...

"I'm just not interested in James Bond as a character."

Well, there's not a lot of complexity is there? Even in the books, he's just an upright English Spy, who likes his martini's "Shaken not stirred" (LOL) and who can outfight, out love, and out think, any Johnny Foreigner who tries to cross the British Empire. For commercial reasons, Ian Fleming loved to place several of his books in North America/Caribbean, and there was always a CIA "Sidekick", but he was really a UK patriot, a sort of sophisticated follow-on to Bulldog Drummond.

Fleming was really smart to anticipate all the consumer snobbery of the 1960's where knowing the right whiskey to drink and that fish went with white wine made you a sophisticate. I thought the Beverly Hillbillies did an excellent job of satirizing it.

narciso said...

well he lived in Jamaica, in the compound called golden eye, the bbc series about Flemings backstory, suggests his wife, the former miss rothermere, had something of zenia onatopp to her, he was an planner, not an operator, he based bond on a number of characters including dusko popov, the Yugoslav triple agent,

narciso said...

largo was a henchman, not the main villain, now there was a contest between fleming and kevin McCrory, who ultimately won the right to do a film, that was never say never again, with Klaus maria brandauer on adnan khashoggi's boat, and kim Basinger's part,

Szoszolo said...

I have a bad feeling about this ...

Claudine Auger (Domino in "Thunderball") just died, and now Althouse is having Connery pop up everywhere. He may be next to shuffle off.