As one who has also spent many years researching the life of Vincent van Gogh, first as the author and director of the play Stranger on the Earth and later as the writer and director of the film The Eyes of Van Gogh, I empathize with the effort spent in producing the book, Van Gogh’s Ear: Paul Gauguin and the Pact of Silence, by Hans Kaufmann and Rita Wildegans.
I understand and appreciate their fascination with this extraordinary individual.
Nonetheless, it must be said that the entire basis of their book rests on a regrettable but enormous misunderstanding of what it was van Gogh wrote to his brother Theo and to Paul Gauguin. That, plus a very selective editing of the same letters and an apparent lack of awareness of certain key facts about Gauguin, led them to a very flawed premise. They then proceeded to shore up their thesis with assertions easily rebutted and with one ludicrous and fabricated incident.
Frankly, I am astonished and appalled by the unthinking reception and attention this book has received from the press.
The authors have concluded that Gauguin, not Vincent himself, is responsible for the mutilation of van Gogh’s ear. They state “We carefully re-examined witness accounts and letters written by both artists and we came to the conclusion that van Gogh was terribly upset over Gauguin’s plan to go back to Paris.” This in itself is no revelation. Anyone who has studied the letters van Gogh wrote to his brother Theo after he mutilated himself, as well as the references to the incident in Gauguin’s memoirs, would know this.
Again quoting the authors: “In the first letter that Vincent van Gogh wrote after the incident, he told Gauguin, ‘I will keep quiet about this and so will you.’ That apparently was the beginning of the ‘pact of silence.’”
The first letter that Vincent wrote after the maiming was to Theo on January 1, 1889, eight days after the event. On the lack of the letter he wrote a note to Gauguin questioned the necessity of having Theo come to Arles. “Look here – was my brother Theo’s journey really necessary, old man?” It pained Vincent terribly to live off of Theo; the last thing he wanted was to burden him with this.
Vincent never wrote “I will keep silent about this and so will you.” There is absolutely no reference to this so called “pact of silent” anywhere in the letter. The only reference to silence, per se, is in a letter to Theo written January 17, 1889 where he mentions that after the incident he had continually asked for Gauguin but he refused to come. He wrote, “How can Gauguin pretend that he was afraid of upsetting me by his present, when he can hardly deny that he knew I kept asking for him continually, and that he was told over and over again that I insisted on seeing him at once. Just to tell him that we should keep it between him and me, without upsetting you. He would not listen.” Meaning that Gauguin did tell Theo what had happened. There was no cover-up. No pact of silence. How could there have been since Vincent makes it clear in this letter that Gauguin refused to see him after the mutilation. Any silence Vincent wanted was in regard to Theo’s learning what he had done to himself – completely in keeping with his character, actions and statements throughout his life, up to and including his suicide, when he pleaded with Dr. Gachet not to let Theo know he shot himself.
Another point: The telegram Gauguin sent to Theo telling him what happened was sent the following morning – after the injury – when Gauguin, seeing a crowd at the Yellow House, discovered what Vincent had done. Obviously, if he had injured Vincent, he wouldn’t have retired to a hotel and let his friend bleed to death, but would have notified Theo immediately.
Kaufmann also cites correspondence between van Gogh and his brother in which the painter hints at what happened that night without directly breaking the “pact of silence’ writing that, “…it is lucky that Gauguin does not have a machine gun or other firearms.” This is very selective editing. What Vincent actually wrote in that letter of January 17, 1889 is, “Fortunately, Gauguin and I and other painters are not yet armed with machine guns and other very destructive elements of war.” He was expressing his disdain for violence disguised as sport.
Finally, again quoting the authors: ‘On the evening of December 23, 1888 van Gogh, seized by an attack of a metabolic disease, became very aggressive when Gauguin said he was leaving him for good. The men had a heated argument near the brothel and Vincent might have attacked his friend. Gauguin, wanting to defend himself and wanting to get rid of ‘the madman’ drew his weapon and made a move towards van Gogh and by that he cut off his left ear.”
Several points: 1. It was not Vincent’s entire ear that was cut off, but rather the lower third of the ear. 2. If in the course of a heated argument Vincent attacked him, Gauguin would have had no need for a sword since he was an expert boxer and would have made short work of a totally inept fighter like Vincent. (While in Brittany in 1893, Gauguin was attacked by a large group of sailors. He more than held his own until he tripped and severely injured his leg.) 3. Gauguin was also an expert swordsman. The swords he fenced with were, of course, foils. For those who don’t know, a foil is a thrusting, not a cutting, weapon and does not have a cutting edge. The idea of Gauguin striking downward with a foil and cutting off a third of Vincent’s lower ear is ludicrous; in fact, damn near impossible. If Gauguin did have a cutting sword (which, of course, he didn’t) and was able to cut of Vincent’s lower ear, rest assured he would have cut off part of his face and shoulder with it.
How sad this whole thing is. As I have written before, there are more myths and misinformation about Vincent van Gogh than any artist who ever lived. What should capture the attention of the world are the facts: The most significant and revelatory things about van Gogh are not that he cut off his earlobe or that he suffered attacks of madness or that he committed suicide, but rather that he lived life to the fullest, realized his artistic potential as much as humanly possible, fought magnificently against the attacks and all forms of adversity - never willingly giving in to them. Most important, he created a superb body of work that will live as long as the human race survives. The theme of his life is his quest to achieve immortality through his work.
May 09, 2009
Vincent van Gogh Myths: Myth #4
The myth: Vincent was forced into the asylum by the citizens of Arles and his brother.
The truth: Vincent van Gogh admitted himself to the insane asylum at St. Remy voluntarily because he wanted to be isolated from the outside world; because he considered himself a potential danger to others; and because he wanted to be in a protective environment.
His brother Theo was strongly against his going the St. Remy and wanted Vincent to come to Paris where Theo and Johanna, his wife, could look after him.
The truth: Vincent van Gogh admitted himself to the insane asylum at St. Remy voluntarily because he wanted to be isolated from the outside world; because he considered himself a potential danger to others; and because he wanted to be in a protective environment.
His brother Theo was strongly against his going the St. Remy and wanted Vincent to come to Paris where Theo and Johanna, his wife, could look after him.
May 07, 2009
The Where did Vincent van Gogh shoot himself myth
Vincent van Gogh Myths: Myth #3
The myth: Vincent shot himself in the chest.
The truth: No. The reason Vincent van Gogh died slowly and lingered for two days was because he shot himself in the upper abdomen rather than the chest, which had been his intention. The wound he suffered was not necessarily fatal but he no longer had the will to live.
May 06, 2009
The Only One Painting Vincent van Gogh Myth
Vincent van Gogh Myths: Myth #2
The myth: Vincent van Gogh sold only one painting.
The truth: It made little difference in his life but van Gogh, in fact, sold two paintings ( and may have sold one or two others as well). On October 3, 1888 his brother, Theo, wrote to the London art dealers, Sulley & Lori. In this letter he said: "We have the honour to inform you that we have sent you the two pictures you have bought and duly paid for; a landscape by Camille Corot,...a self portrait by V. van Gogh." Another picture, therefore, was sold in England nearly fifteen months before Anna Boch bought The Red Vines.
May 05, 2009
Vincent van Gogh and Dr. Peyron Myth 1
Vincent van Gogh Myths: Myth #1
The myth: The institution of St. Remy and the man in charge, Dr. Peyron, strongly encouraged Vincent van Gogh to paint and cared for him using advanced modalities in the treatment of psychiatric illness.
The truth: The institution of St. Remy never encouraged Vincent to work; on the contrary, Dr. Peyron opposed the idea from the very beginning and with the greatest reluctance allowed him to paint. I am very glad to hear that they now offer workshops in art therapy, etc. but this was definitely not the case when Vincent was there. The sole treatment was hydrotherapy-hot baths, twice a week. The idea of any kind of work was anathema. There were no books in the asylum, no distractions except bowls and draughts. Vincent found it loathsome that they were given nothing to do. As he said, they were like vegetables, sitting around all day eating, digesting and waiting for their next meal.
If the authorities today claim otherwise they're lying. Vincent's letters prove it. Vincent suffered four attacks at St. Remy. After the final one Dr. Peyron forbid him to paint in spite of his pleading. It was then that he left St.Remy.
David Sweetman's The Love of Many Things - A Life of Vincent Van Gogh corroborates the official version. And what, pray tell, was Sweetman’s source? Probably the institution’s own account. Who do we believe, Vincent and Theo or Sweetman and the institution?
Vincent wrote to Theo at this time: “M. Salles has been to St. Remy – they are not willing to let me point outside the institution.” April1889. Theo, over the strong objections of the administrators, persuaded them to allow Vincent to paint and arranged that he should have two rooms, one to be used as a bedroom and the other as a studio. Both, mere dingy cells with bars like all the other cells. Sweetman's description makes it sound like a resort.Reiterating my earlier point, prior to Vincent, no patient at St. Remy was ever allowed to do any work of any kind. Their whole philosophy was to keep all the patients as quiet and inactive as possible. Vincent again, “Above all I must not waste my time, I am going to set to work again as soon as M. Peyron permits it; if he does not permit it, then I shall be through with this place. … The rather superstitious ideas they have here about painting sometimes depress me more than I can tell you.” January 1890. For them to claim that they pioneered the treatment of psychiatric illness (at least when Vincent was there) is belied directly by Vincent’s own account. Again: “The treatment of patients in the hospital is certainly easy for they do absolutely nothing; they leave them to vegetate in idleness and feed them with stale and slightly spoiled food.” Sept. 1889. “The food is so-so. Naturally it tastes rather moldy, like in a cockroach infested restaurant in Paris.” May 1889. As to the people, Peyron included, who ran the institution, “Perhaps they would like nothing better than for the thing to become chronic, and we should be culpably stupid to give into that. They inquire a great deal too much to my liking about what not only I but also what you earn, and so on.” August 1889.
Vincent’s stay at St. Remy was indeed a nightmare. For them now to try to rewrite history is very typical and very wrong. I made my film The Eyes of Van Gogh to set the record straight, to show what really happened there and also to reveal the truth behind his relationships to his brother, his father and Gauguin. All from his point of view.
April 11, 2009
April 01, 2009
DARFUR: THE PEOPLE THE WORLD HAS FORGOTTEN
The tragedy in Darfur has been going on for four years and all we've had from the world at large is fancy talk and much posturing. I ask these rabid non intervationists, what would you do if your wife was raped or your children were murdered or they were in danger of this happening? I'm not talking about invading Karthoum or supporting the rebels. I'm talking about protecting totally innocent people who have no way of protecting themselves, by creating a no-fly zone so that Bashir's butchers can't get near them. And please, don't tell me that we have more immediate problems to worry about. The economic problems that we and other countries currently face is child's play compared to what these people are going through. What they wouldn't give to exchange their problems for ours. Check the above link for a typically excellent article on Darfur by one of my biggest heroes, Nat Hentoff.
March 04, 2009
Bashir: Murderer
In my view, for the immiserated people of Darfur, this is far too little and far too late.
February 24, 2009
ART AND HUMAN REALITY
Human life is lived in a middle position between our genetic determinants on the one hand and culture on the other. It's out of that that human freedom emerges. And artistic works, the plays of Shakespeare, the novels of Jane Austen, the works of Wagner and Beethoven, Rembrandt and Hokusai, are among the freest, most human acts ever accomplished. These creations are the ultimate expressions of freedom.
Perfectly said.
Perfectly said.
At What Cost? HIV and Human Rights Consequences of the Global "War on Drugs"
This OSI report examines the unintended consequences of aggressive antidrug policies on people who use drugs, their families, and the health care providers who work with them.
February 20, 2009
Manufacturing Guilt?
I urge you to get this into the hands of as many people as possible. AB.
Video Raises Serious Questions About Death Row Conviction. In 1993, 23-month-old Haley Oliveaux drowned in her bathtub in West Monroe, Louisiana. Bite mark identification and analysis performed by forensic experts Steven Hayne and Michael West tied Jimmie Duncan to Oliveaux’s death. Duncan was convicted of murdering the baby girl and sentenced to death. He has been on death row for 10 years. But an autopsy videotape obtained by Reason magazine’s Radley Balko shows the bite marks were not on Oliveaux’s body at the time of her death. You can see the video, and still photos from it, here. Balko asked Michael Bowers, a deputy medical examiner for Ventura County, California, and a past chairman of the American Board of Forensic Odontology’s Exam and Credentialing Committee, to review the tape. When asked how abrasions on Oliveaux's cheek that were not present when the video begins could later appear, Bowers said, "Because Dr. West created them. It was intentional. He's creating artificial abrasions in that video, and he's tampering with the evidence. It's criminal, regardless of what excuse he may come up with about his methods."
Balko's Reporting on Mississippi's Criminal Forensics System
Video Raises Serious Questions About Death Row Conviction. In 1993, 23-month-old Haley Oliveaux drowned in her bathtub in West Monroe, Louisiana. Bite mark identification and analysis performed by forensic experts Steven Hayne and Michael West tied Jimmie Duncan to Oliveaux’s death. Duncan was convicted of murdering the baby girl and sentenced to death. He has been on death row for 10 years. But an autopsy videotape obtained by Reason magazine’s Radley Balko shows the bite marks were not on Oliveaux’s body at the time of her death. You can see the video, and still photos from it, here. Balko asked Michael Bowers, a deputy medical examiner for Ventura County, California, and a past chairman of the American Board of Forensic Odontology’s Exam and Credentialing Committee, to review the tape. When asked how abrasions on Oliveaux's cheek that were not present when the video begins could later appear, Bowers said, "Because Dr. West created them. It was intentional. He's creating artificial abrasions in that video, and he's tampering with the evidence. It's criminal, regardless of what excuse he may come up with about his methods."
Balko's Reporting on Mississippi's Criminal Forensics System
February 11, 2009
New film clip from The Eyes of Van Gogh
Dr. Peyron (Roy Thinnes) tells Vincent (Alexander Barnett) that he will never be cured.
The official site of the film is http://www.theeyesofvangogh.com/.The Eyes of Van Gogh Film Clip
In this scene from the film Vincent (Alexander Barnett) and Gauguin (Lee Godart) battle for the last time.
January 20, 2009
Thoughts on directing Macbeth
Classic Theatre International, which I founded, was an American company dedicated to performing Shakespeare and contemporary classics throughout the world. One of those productions was Macbeth.
We interpreted Macbeth as an in-depth study of fear and tyranny and as one of Shakespeare’s most brutal and savage plays. Our Macbeth does not enter from battle as a finely-robed, unmarked general who has the sophisticated soul of a poet, but rather as a bloodied, scarred, intrepid, unsurpassed gladiator. Macbeth’s imagery expresses his subconscious mind but that in no way makes him a poet. Neither is he a victim of circumstances or a man whose fate is determined by supernatural influences or an overbearing wife. He is one of those people who would love to enjoy the fruits of treachery without having had to commit the treachery, thereby retaining a clean conscience even as he reaps the results of evil. Macbeth knows what he wants and what he must do to get it.
The idea of killing Duncan occurs to him before he is confronted by the three sisters. He tells his wife of his desires because he knows that she will give him the emotional and moral support he most desperately needs in order to achieve them. Macbeth has no predisposition to murder, merely an inordinate ambition and a lust for power that make murder itself seem a lesser evil than a failure to secure the crown. After he commits the murder it is fear, not guilt that infects Macbeth’s dreams and causes his intense paranoia.
Macbeth and Lady Macbeth are devoid of pathos and tenderness. They are not innocent sufferers but self-corrupted and guilty workers of horror. They do not command our affection or our sympathy, but we should be riveted, astounded and overwhelmed by their passion, brutality and determination. Above all they are human beings and not unreal monsters or evil incarnate. In Macbeth there are no neutral characters. Every person opposes, allows or encourages the tyranny unleashed by Macbeth. We do not treat the witches as supernatural beings but as the outward manifestation of Macbeth’s inner struggles and desires. Macbeth’s inner struggle and turmoil are expressed literally and theatrically.
I trained the company not to treat poetry as a strange, peculiar or awkward form of speech but as an absolutely natural and necessary way of expressing the highest and most profound thoughts in the most precise and perfect way possible. We tried to combine the perfect blending of the cerebral and the emotional; the thinking heart as Victor Hugo called it. This, plus a reverence for clarity and form, overcame much of the language barrier we encountered.
Our goal was not to perform only once in a city but to return year after year with the purpose of enriching all our lives. I firmly believe that there is a universal language that can be expressed through the correct combination and execution of text, mind, voice and body.
We interpreted Macbeth as an in-depth study of fear and tyranny and as one of Shakespeare’s most brutal and savage plays. Our Macbeth does not enter from battle as a finely-robed, unmarked general who has the sophisticated soul of a poet, but rather as a bloodied, scarred, intrepid, unsurpassed gladiator. Macbeth’s imagery expresses his subconscious mind but that in no way makes him a poet. Neither is he a victim of circumstances or a man whose fate is determined by supernatural influences or an overbearing wife. He is one of those people who would love to enjoy the fruits of treachery without having had to commit the treachery, thereby retaining a clean conscience even as he reaps the results of evil. Macbeth knows what he wants and what he must do to get it.
The idea of killing Duncan occurs to him before he is confronted by the three sisters. He tells his wife of his desires because he knows that she will give him the emotional and moral support he most desperately needs in order to achieve them. Macbeth has no predisposition to murder, merely an inordinate ambition and a lust for power that make murder itself seem a lesser evil than a failure to secure the crown. After he commits the murder it is fear, not guilt that infects Macbeth’s dreams and causes his intense paranoia.
Macbeth and Lady Macbeth are devoid of pathos and tenderness. They are not innocent sufferers but self-corrupted and guilty workers of horror. They do not command our affection or our sympathy, but we should be riveted, astounded and overwhelmed by their passion, brutality and determination. Above all they are human beings and not unreal monsters or evil incarnate. In Macbeth there are no neutral characters. Every person opposes, allows or encourages the tyranny unleashed by Macbeth. We do not treat the witches as supernatural beings but as the outward manifestation of Macbeth’s inner struggles and desires. Macbeth’s inner struggle and turmoil are expressed literally and theatrically.
I trained the company not to treat poetry as a strange, peculiar or awkward form of speech but as an absolutely natural and necessary way of expressing the highest and most profound thoughts in the most precise and perfect way possible. We tried to combine the perfect blending of the cerebral and the emotional; the thinking heart as Victor Hugo called it. This, plus a reverence for clarity and form, overcame much of the language barrier we encountered.
Our goal was not to perform only once in a city but to return year after year with the purpose of enriching all our lives. I firmly believe that there is a universal language that can be expressed through the correct combination and execution of text, mind, voice and body.
Thematic Structure of my Production of Othello
The production of Othello that I directed for Classic Theatre International was stark, brutal and
unsentimental. We interpret it as a sixteenth century horror story that, tragically, is incredibly more than applicable in our modern world. In this production the tragedy is not in the downfall of a great man but rather in the cold-blooded murder of two marvelous and heroic women, Desdemona and Emilia. We view the production from a woman’s as well as a man’s point of view. We show the results of a male-dominated society where vanity, ego and appearance dominate rational and logical considerations and where women are treated as property and second-class citizens. It is a stinging indictment of the warrior mentality of Othello and the analytical yet maniacal and inhuman mentality of Iago.
We see Othello not as great man but rather as a very flawed individual who happens to be an outstanding warrior. Self-delusion is at the core of his character. His greatest flaws are his refusal to face the reality of his nature and his firm belief that he has the right to be judge, jury and executioner. Watching him we learn the importance of humility, of constantly questioning our motives, of knowing and admitting our weaknesses and failures and of constantly striving to improve ourselves. We are also reminded that no one except a legally appointed person, operating within the framework of a humanistic and ethical code, has the right to pass sentence on another human being. 
unsentimental. We interpret it as a sixteenth century horror story that, tragically, is incredibly more than applicable in our modern world. In this production the tragedy is not in the downfall of a great man but rather in the cold-blooded murder of two marvelous and heroic women, Desdemona and Emilia. We view the production from a woman’s as well as a man’s point of view. We show the results of a male-dominated society where vanity, ego and appearance dominate rational and logical considerations and where women are treated as property and second-class citizens. It is a stinging indictment of the warrior mentality of Othello and the analytical yet maniacal and inhuman mentality of Iago.
We see Othello not as great man but rather as a very flawed individual who happens to be an outstanding warrior. Self-delusion is at the core of his character. His greatest flaws are his refusal to face the reality of his nature and his firm belief that he has the right to be judge, jury and executioner. Watching him we learn the importance of humility, of constantly questioning our motives, of knowing and admitting our weaknesses and failures and of constantly striving to improve ourselves. We are also reminded that no one except a legally appointed person, operating within the framework of a humanistic and ethical code, has the right to pass sentence on another human being. 
In regard to Iago - unlike the standard portrayal of a dispassionate, unmotivated and coldly objective creature we see an obsessive, irrational, subjective, compulsive, reckless, maniacal paranoid who is overwhelmed with hatred and yet has the incredible ability to present to the world an entirely different personality. He literally thrives on danger and excitement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ix9ZEy-ndvE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ix9ZEy-ndvE
January 16, 2009
Themes in King Lear
KING LEAR is Shakespeare’s greatest play and very likely the greatest work of literature ever written. Its themes are of the most profound nature. What is the ultimate power that moves the universe? What is the meaning of justice? What motivates man to be evil or good?
The play takes place in 800 B.C. King Lear has led Britain for sixty years. During his reign he has created a fantasy land not founded on truth. He is blind to what is really around him. He is a man of vast potential; a man of enormous passion, humanity, dignity and strength who has been inundated with lies, flattery unchallenged obedience and false adoration. He who most needed and demanded truth, he whose inner being was so honest, trusting and ethical learned to compromise his integrity, thriving on lies while his subconscious, his essence, has been devastated. He has denied himself his most important need: self-realization.
When the play opens, Lear’s psychological state is such that he is often incapable of controlling his strongest emotions. He is aware of this lack of control. Even as he indulges it he fears the consequences Lear has always been a man of lowering passion but had the incredible mind and will to match it. Now, however, his purpose and control have been eroded by his increasingly irrational emotional state.
Lear’s madness is not the result of evil or unjust actions, but that his actions belie his essence. Emotionally induced madness is brought on by an overwhelming accumulation of lies that the subconscious rebels against. The manifestation of madness is the body and mind’s defense against total physical destruction. Immoral actions do not induce madness in those whose essence condones them. Witness the unethical characters in KING LEAR who rarely lose their equanimity and are always objectively aware of what they are doing.
Edmund,
the bastard son of Gloucester, knows exactly what he wants and is willing to do anything to get it. He is not immoral but amoral. He will be anything and do anything to achieve his nefarious end. He has an uncanny ability to encourage people to be what they are arid to express themselves fully. Then he uses this knowledge to destroy them. He radiates concern and empathy, and always for his own malevolent purposes.
Goneril, Lear’s eldest daughter, trusts no one, anticipating chicanery and duplicity from everyone she deals with. She believes that there are two kinds of people, those who will kill and destroy to achieve their goals and those who won’t, simply because they lack the courage. To the extent that she practices evil is the extent to which she sees and anticipates it in others. No sooner is she given new power than she is already afraid of losing it. No moment in her life is savored or enjoyed, no victory brings satisfaction. In effect, every gain in her life is a loss because it creates a new problem. She is not defeated because of complacency, but because she sees everything as a potential threat and so she continually strikes out and finally overreaches.
Cornwall, husband of Regan, is an excellent study of a purely sadistic brutal and vicious character. He is hot-tempered, ambitious, cowardly, ruthless and arrogant. He is a born dictator with a rigid code by which he judges others, but he considers himself sacrosanct. He believes that he who has the ability or good fortune to achieve power automatically has the right to use it any way he deems fit. Unlike Edmund, he is not amoral. He does have a code and rules by which he lives. He is a religious man. He believes that if one achieves power on his own it results in a divine authority and that if one inherits power (as he has) it demonstrates God’s recognition of this authority.
Goneril’s sister Regan is an insidious, vicious, mean-tempered woman who unlike Goneril has always given the appearance of being docile and even sweet. This stems from a certain diffidence and a basically quieter nature which in no way makes her morally superior. Both sisters view everything in terms of themselves and how it relates to them. Nothing else is important. Nothing else means anything. When any of these evil characters taste blood they seem to become infected by it. But it is not the taste of blood that is the catalyst, but the desire to taste it.
Cordelia and Kent are outstanding studies of the virtuous and ethical nature. They are impulsive, emotional and loyal creatures who can neither lie to themselves or others. Since they are so totally discerning and selective, their devotion to Lear tells us a great deal about his ultimate worth.
Gloucester, father to Edmund and Edgar, is an undiscerning, selfish, credulous and superstitious
man. He is opinionated and cynical and is constantly seeking re-affirmation of his cynicism. While Lear seeks confirmation of love and trust, Gloucester seeks the opposite. He is a kind and decent man with a weak, impressionable nature. It is his nature to be acted upon and led by stronger personalities. When the events and people who influence him are decent and moral he acts accordingly, but when they are not he goes against his essence. Lear and Gloucester are both lied to, but this is secondary. What is paramount is that they, by accepting these lies as truth, have lied to themselves. They knew better but did not act on their knowledge.
The play takes place in 800 B.C. King Lear has led Britain for sixty years. During his reign he has created a fantasy land not founded on truth. He is blind to what is really around him. He is a man of vast potential; a man of enormous passion, humanity, dignity and strength who has been inundated with lies, flattery unchallenged obedience and false adoration. He who most needed and demanded truth, he whose inner being was so honest, trusting and ethical learned to compromise his integrity, thriving on lies while his subconscious, his essence, has been devastated. He has denied himself his most important need: self-realization.
When the play opens, Lear’s psychological state is such that he is often incapable of controlling his strongest emotions. He is aware of this lack of control. Even as he indulges it he fears the consequences Lear has always been a man of lowering passion but had the incredible mind and will to match it. Now, however, his purpose and control have been eroded by his increasingly irrational emotional state.
Lear’s madness is not the result of evil or unjust actions, but that his actions belie his essence. Emotionally induced madness is brought on by an overwhelming accumulation of lies that the subconscious rebels against. The manifestation of madness is the body and mind’s defense against total physical destruction. Immoral actions do not induce madness in those whose essence condones them. Witness the unethical characters in KING LEAR who rarely lose their equanimity and are always objectively aware of what they are doing.
Edmund,
the bastard son of Gloucester, knows exactly what he wants and is willing to do anything to get it. He is not immoral but amoral. He will be anything and do anything to achieve his nefarious end. He has an uncanny ability to encourage people to be what they are arid to express themselves fully. Then he uses this knowledge to destroy them. He radiates concern and empathy, and always for his own malevolent purposes.Goneril, Lear’s eldest daughter, trusts no one, anticipating chicanery and duplicity from everyone she deals with. She believes that there are two kinds of people, those who will kill and destroy to achieve their goals and those who won’t, simply because they lack the courage. To the extent that she practices evil is the extent to which she sees and anticipates it in others. No sooner is she given new power than she is already afraid of losing it. No moment in her life is savored or enjoyed, no victory brings satisfaction. In effect, every gain in her life is a loss because it creates a new problem. She is not defeated because of complacency, but because she sees everything as a potential threat and so she continually strikes out and finally overreaches.
Cornwall, husband of Regan, is an excellent study of a purely sadistic brutal and vicious character. He is hot-tempered, ambitious, cowardly, ruthless and arrogant. He is a born dictator with a rigid code by which he judges others, but he considers himself sacrosanct. He believes that he who has the ability or good fortune to achieve power automatically has the right to use it any way he deems fit. Unlike Edmund, he is not amoral. He does have a code and rules by which he lives. He is a religious man. He believes that if one achieves power on his own it results in a divine authority and that if one inherits power (as he has) it demonstrates God’s recognition of this authority.
Goneril’s sister Regan is an insidious, vicious, mean-tempered woman who unlike Goneril has always given the appearance of being docile and even sweet. This stems from a certain diffidence and a basically quieter nature which in no way makes her morally superior. Both sisters view everything in terms of themselves and how it relates to them. Nothing else is important. Nothing else means anything. When any of these evil characters taste blood they seem to become infected by it. But it is not the taste of blood that is the catalyst, but the desire to taste it.
Cordelia and Kent are outstanding studies of the virtuous and ethical nature. They are impulsive, emotional and loyal creatures who can neither lie to themselves or others. Since they are so totally discerning and selective, their devotion to Lear tells us a great deal about his ultimate worth.
Gloucester, father to Edmund and Edgar, is an undiscerning, selfish, credulous and superstitious
man. He is opinionated and cynical and is constantly seeking re-affirmation of his cynicism. While Lear seeks confirmation of love and trust, Gloucester seeks the opposite. He is a kind and decent man with a weak, impressionable nature. It is his nature to be acted upon and led by stronger personalities. When the events and people who influence him are decent and moral he acts accordingly, but when they are not he goes against his essence. Lear and Gloucester are both lied to, but this is secondary. What is paramount is that they, by accepting these lies as truth, have lied to themselves. They knew better but did not act on their knowledge.January 11, 2009
New Website
My new website www.alexanderbarnett.com is now published. I hope you'll visit. There will be new updates frequently.
December 29, 2008
Pre-production thoughts on my upcoming film of King Lear.
King Lear is Shakespeare's greatest play and very likely the greatest work in all of literature. Its themes are of the most profound nature: redemption; self-realization; the myth of universal justice; fortuitousness in the battle between good and evil; the nature of evil.
The 80-year old Lear has been King for many decades. During his reign he has slowly and inexorably become blind to reality. He is a man of vast potential; a man of enormous passion, humanity, dignity and strength who has been inundated with lies, flattery, unchallenged obedience and false adoration.
When the play opens, Lear's psychological state is such that he is often incapable of controlling his strongest emotions. Lear has always been a man of towering passion, but had the incredible mind and will to match it. Now, however, his purpose and control have been eroded by his increasingly irrational emotional state.
In any production of King Lear, we must see the lion in Lear and his raging battle between his age and failing mind. T here must be a constant struggle between the Lear of old and the present Lear. If we don't see the towering Lear we're left with the ill, debilitated, sorrowful Lear and the conflict is gone - we never see his basic nature, which is the cause of decline. What make him so fascinating and exciting are his tremendous extremes of temperament. First and foremost he must always be a fighter and never give in to adversity. This is a man who fights an epic and magnificent struggle against overwhelming physical and emotional turmoil and whose implacable refusal to surrender makes him one of the greatest, most towering and passionate tragic characters ever created.
And the most difficult portrayal in the entire Shakespearean canon. The actor portraying Lear can't drive the torment, confusion and bewilderment that emanates from Lear – they must drive him. No amount of brilliant faking will work. I t's either real or not. We must see the torment.
Gloucester is an undiscerning, selfish, credulous and superstitious man. He is basically decent, but with a weak, impressionable nature. The portrayal must allow for catharsis is impossible. Edgar, Gloucester's legitimate son, is a totally trusting, inexperienced and ingenuous soul who has vast, untapped potential. He goes through an incredible process of development and maturity. Edmund, Gloucester's bastard son is willing to do anything to achieve his nefarious ends. He is not immoral, but amoral. He has the uncanny ability to unleash each woman's full sexual potential. This, plus his physical attractiveness, his feigned but convincing warmth and concern, his self-confidence and sense of humor make him an ideal, consummate lover. With the obvious obsession that Goneril and Regan have for Edmund, nothing less will suffice. He must have the charm, confidence, fearlessness, dominance and supreme ability to dupe others. Albany, Goneril's husband, is a decent, sensitive, ethical and intelligent man who prefers to avoid altercation and acrimony, but should possess both appeal and perception. Cordelia is not a sweet, frail, delicate ingénue. If she were, Lear would never favor her. She is, rather, much like Lear: resolute, dignified, proud, outspoken and fearless. This is why Lear adores her. Indeed, she must match Regan and Goneril in strength and tenacity. It must be conceivable to imagine Cordelia’s leading an army to rescue her father. The Fool should be a creature of nature. Pure instinct. Spontaneous, unpredictable and uncontrollable.
Ultimately, Lear, the 80-year old with the heart of a gladiator, should arouse in us, not tears, primarily, but awe that such a man could exist.
November 28, 2008
November 13, 2008
What Causes the "Death of Theo" Hallucination Scene in The Eyes of Van Gogh?Pre-Production Notes for the film The Eyes of Van Gogh
As the director and screenwriter, what I wanted for this scene in my film The Eyes of Van Gogh was to capture Vincent van Gogh's overwhelming guilt for placing such a burden as caring for him upon his brother, Theo; his terrible fear that Theo would stop supporting him; the gnawing, growing doubts about the true value of his work and the sickening sense that his work is not worth the help given to him by Theo (played in the film by Gordon Joseph Weiss).
During the course of the scene the audience should sense Vincent's growing awareness that he has contributed only pain and suffering to Theo's life; his deepening conviction that he will never be able to pay Theo back and, ultimately, that the burden he is putting on Theo will kill him.
Beyond that, though, the scene reveals Vincent's tremendous need to see Theo, talk to him, touch him, reassure him. To assuage Theo's growing doubts about continuing to support him, his concerns about his family, his ill health, his job security as an art dealer.
Everything that happens to Vincent in this scene, every thought, every action, every fear has already occurred to him in a lucid, contemplative state. But here he is living it, literally, in a hallucinatory state.
The key motivating factors that drive both the scene and the character of Vincent are the first attack he had in the insane asylum at St. Remy, from which it took him three weeks to recover. He is still very vulnerable.
Five days prior to the scene, Theo wrote to tell him of the birth of his son, to whom he has given the dreaded name of Vincent. Vincent becomes acutely aware that Theo now has his own family to support. Finally, two days prior, Theo wrote to tell Vincent that his growing weakness had been diagnosed as a possible weak heart.
When Theo appears in the scene, things change dramatically. Now the scene takes on a heightened reality that represents all of Vincent's worst fears. In his hallucinatory state, van Gogh imagines all of Theo's most worrisome thoughts from numerous letters. Out of context they present horrifying pictures, though they constitute no more than 5% of the whole of the letters.
Theo, of course, obeys the logic of the hallucination.
During the course of the scene the audience should sense Vincent's growing awareness that he has contributed only pain and suffering to Theo's life; his deepening conviction that he will never be able to pay Theo back and, ultimately, that the burden he is putting on Theo will kill him.
Beyond that, though, the scene reveals Vincent's tremendous need to see Theo, talk to him, touch him, reassure him. To assuage Theo's growing doubts about continuing to support him, his concerns about his family, his ill health, his job security as an art dealer.
Everything that happens to Vincent in this scene, every thought, every action, every fear has already occurred to him in a lucid, contemplative state. But here he is living it, literally, in a hallucinatory state.
The key motivating factors that drive both the scene and the character of Vincent are the first attack he had in the insane asylum at St. Remy, from which it took him three weeks to recover. He is still very vulnerable.
Five days prior to the scene, Theo wrote to tell him of the birth of his son, to whom he has given the dreaded name of Vincent. Vincent becomes acutely aware that Theo now has his own family to support. Finally, two days prior, Theo wrote to tell Vincent that his growing weakness had been diagnosed as a possible weak heart.
When Theo appears in the scene, things change dramatically. Now the scene takes on a heightened reality that represents all of Vincent's worst fears. In his hallucinatory state, van Gogh imagines all of Theo's most worrisome thoughts from numerous letters. Out of context they present horrifying pictures, though they constitute no more than 5% of the whole of the letters.
Theo, of course, obeys the logic of the hallucination.
On Filming The Eyes of Van Gogh : The Director's Viewpoint
The goal I set for myself in transferring my film script for The Eyes of Van Gogh to the screen was never to present but rather to uncover.
My director of photography, Ian Dudley, and I employ a subjective camera throughout the entire film. The idea is to get inside Vincent's head. Everything seen and felt is from his point of view. In order to achieve this, the camera, rather than viewing the action, is always within the action. We strove to give objective expression to inner experience, i.e., to show what Vincent was thinking and feeling; to show how a memory, dream or hallucination registers in his mind: texture, sound, color, shape, tempo.
The purpose is not for the audience merely to be a witness, but rather for them to live within the image and to participate psychologically in the action. Vincent's mind, from beginning to end, is always engaged. His confusion, struggle, bewilderment and desperation grow and grow. He is never totally in one place. When he is in the past he still retains some of the present and vice versa.
Many scenes are dream, imaginary or hallucinatory sequences. In order to convey the intensity and obsessive quality and to maintain the subjective camera movement, all of the scenes were shot at 360 degrees with a handheld camera. From childhood on, Vincent van Gogh never took anything for granted. He always marveled at every new discovery; at all the wonders of the world.
Because of the burden he put on his brother, Theo van Gogh, and because his work never sold, Vincent suffered constantly with terrible bouts of guilt, remorse and regret Vincent came to the insane asylum at St. Remy because he wanted to be isolated from the outside world and be in a protective environment. As long as he could discover and reveal new truths and carry on with his work he could hold the horrible disease at bay.
The constant obsession by psychoanalysts, doctors and armchair experts to pigeonhole van Gogh's illness, to give it a specific name, to use it to explain his actions, to claim that the very quality of his personality and his genius can be attributed to a specific malady: bi-polar disease, schizophrenia, autism, tinnitus, gonorrhea, lead poisoning, ad finitum ad nauseam is utter rubbish. It's an insult to Vincent and proof that these people have absolutely no understanding of the man. For Vincent, inactivity was absolute torture. Painting was the only thing that protected him from the constant questions and doubts that haunted him. By going without proper sleep or food, by working himself to the point of exhaustion -- this alone helped silence the most frightening thoughts. It was vitally important to him that his work be recognized; for there to be some sense of recompense, because then he could ease the burden placed on Theo.
Vincent van Gogh's three greatest fears were: suffering another attack; being incapacitated and unable to work; and failing to justify though his work all that Theo had done for him. He felt that if he couldn't work he had no reason to live, no right to take money away from Theo. Vincent was completely original both in his work and in his illness.
Certainly he had severe emotional problems and no doubt they were exacerbated by malnutrition and traumatic experiences - the Borinage, etc. that made him more vulnerable - but ultimately he was defeated by an immense sensitivity and an overwhelming empathic nature that was unable to cope with the reality of the world and the nature of most people.
In spite of what most think, Vincent was a realist both in his life and his work, but his reality was light years beyond everyday reality and therein lay his genius. He indeed saw life as it was but was never able to come to terms with it. Most realists become cynics, but Vincent was totally incapable of this. When an artist becomes a cynic, he also become a hack and is no longer capable of producing heartfelt work. Technical virtuosity may remain, but the "soul" of the work is lost.
Vincent never lost either. By the world's standard of normalcy, then and now, Vincent was not an idealist but quixotic. However, the "world's standard of normalcy, then and now," is by definition pedestrian, mediocre, compliant, herdish, pragmatic, accommodating and compromising. Vincent was extremely difficult to deal with. If he saw some-thing unjust or wrong, he felt compelled to attack it. It was always love or hate and this created many enemies. Even Theo found him impossible to live with. All Vincent thought about, all he cared about was the work. Nevertheless, Theo, like Roulin the postman and Vincent's teacher in Amsterdam, Mendes da Costa, always thought that Vincent was a great and unique individual. Those three were the only friends Vincent ever had, the only people who under-stood and loved him for what and who he was. But they were also unique and wonderful people, atypical from the average person.
Many people today who adulate Vincent make him into a Christ-like martyr. He was neither and would have detested the notion. He is depicted as the ultimate "communal" artist. This is nonsense. He was in fact the ultimate "individualist" who was never able to work well with others, or to be bound by any sort of cooperative rules. His desire to work with others came from loneliness more than anything else. Another myth is that he sacrificed his life (again, the martyr syndrome) for humanity. No. He gave his life to his work. He did indeed have an obsessive desire to educate and inspire people. But he strove to do so through his work, which superseded everything else.
The most significant and revelatory things about van Gogh are not that he cut off his earlobe or that he suffered attacks of madness or that he committed suicide, but rather that he lived life to the fullest, realized his artistic potential as much as humanly possible, fought magnificently against the attacks and all forms of adversity, never willingly giving in to them. Most important, he created a superb body of work that will live as long as the human race survives. The theme of his life, and the theme of my film The Eyes of Van Gogh, is Vincent's quest to achieve immortality through his work.
My director of photography, Ian Dudley, and I employ a subjective camera throughout the entire film. The idea is to get inside Vincent's head. Everything seen and felt is from his point of view. In order to achieve this, the camera, rather than viewing the action, is always within the action. We strove to give objective expression to inner experience, i.e., to show what Vincent was thinking and feeling; to show how a memory, dream or hallucination registers in his mind: texture, sound, color, shape, tempo.
The purpose is not for the audience merely to be a witness, but rather for them to live within the image and to participate psychologically in the action. Vincent's mind, from beginning to end, is always engaged. His confusion, struggle, bewilderment and desperation grow and grow. He is never totally in one place. When he is in the past he still retains some of the present and vice versa.Many scenes are dream, imaginary or hallucinatory sequences. In order to convey the intensity and obsessive quality and to maintain the subjective camera movement, all of the scenes were shot at 360 degrees with a handheld camera. From childhood on, Vincent van Gogh never took anything for granted. He always marveled at every new discovery; at all the wonders of the world.
Because of the burden he put on his brother, Theo van Gogh, and because his work never sold, Vincent suffered constantly with terrible bouts of guilt, remorse and regret Vincent came to the insane asylum at St. Remy because he wanted to be isolated from the outside world and be in a protective environment. As long as he could discover and reveal new truths and carry on with his work he could hold the horrible disease at bay.
The constant obsession by psychoanalysts, doctors and armchair experts to pigeonhole van Gogh's illness, to give it a specific name, to use it to explain his actions, to claim that the very quality of his personality and his genius can be attributed to a specific malady: bi-polar disease, schizophrenia, autism, tinnitus, gonorrhea, lead poisoning, ad finitum ad nauseam is utter rubbish. It's an insult to Vincent and proof that these people have absolutely no understanding of the man. For Vincent, inactivity was absolute torture. Painting was the only thing that protected him from the constant questions and doubts that haunted him. By going without proper sleep or food, by working himself to the point of exhaustion -- this alone helped silence the most frightening thoughts. It was vitally important to him that his work be recognized; for there to be some sense of recompense, because then he could ease the burden placed on Theo.
Vincent van Gogh's three greatest fears were: suffering another attack; being incapacitated and unable to work; and failing to justify though his work all that Theo had done for him. He felt that if he couldn't work he had no reason to live, no right to take money away from Theo. Vincent was completely original both in his work and in his illness.
Certainly he had severe emotional problems and no doubt they were exacerbated by malnutrition and traumatic experiences - the Borinage, etc. that made him more vulnerable - but ultimately he was defeated by an immense sensitivity and an overwhelming empathic nature that was unable to cope with the reality of the world and the nature of most people.In spite of what most think, Vincent was a realist both in his life and his work, but his reality was light years beyond everyday reality and therein lay his genius. He indeed saw life as it was but was never able to come to terms with it. Most realists become cynics, but Vincent was totally incapable of this. When an artist becomes a cynic, he also become a hack and is no longer capable of producing heartfelt work. Technical virtuosity may remain, but the "soul" of the work is lost.
Vincent never lost either. By the world's standard of normalcy, then and now, Vincent was not an idealist but quixotic. However, the "world's standard of normalcy, then and now," is by definition pedestrian, mediocre, compliant, herdish, pragmatic, accommodating and compromising. Vincent was extremely difficult to deal with. If he saw some-thing unjust or wrong, he felt compelled to attack it. It was always love or hate and this created many enemies. Even Theo found him impossible to live with. All Vincent thought about, all he cared about was the work. Nevertheless, Theo, like Roulin the postman and Vincent's teacher in Amsterdam, Mendes da Costa, always thought that Vincent was a great and unique individual. Those three were the only friends Vincent ever had, the only people who under-stood and loved him for what and who he was. But they were also unique and wonderful people, atypical from the average person.
Many people today who adulate Vincent make him into a Christ-like martyr. He was neither and would have detested the notion. He is depicted as the ultimate "communal" artist. This is nonsense. He was in fact the ultimate "individualist" who was never able to work well with others, or to be bound by any sort of cooperative rules. His desire to work with others came from loneliness more than anything else. Another myth is that he sacrificed his life (again, the martyr syndrome) for humanity. No. He gave his life to his work. He did indeed have an obsessive desire to educate and inspire people. But he strove to do so through his work, which superseded everything else.The most significant and revelatory things about van Gogh are not that he cut off his earlobe or that he suffered attacks of madness or that he committed suicide, but rather that he lived life to the fullest, realized his artistic potential as much as humanly possible, fought magnificently against the attacks and all forms of adversity, never willingly giving in to them. Most important, he created a superb body of work that will live as long as the human race survives. The theme of his life, and the theme of my film The Eyes of Van Gogh, is Vincent's quest to achieve immortality through his work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)