Archive for August, 2009

#332 – Port-o-San: Three Minutes of Shit & Sanitation

Friday, August 28th, 2009

the thirty-ninth anniversary of a film within a film.

Woodstock_music_festival_poster

Are ya doin’ a movie?

Yeah.

About this?

Yeah.

What’s it going to be called?

Port-o-San.

Oh, far out.

- Stoned hippie to film crew, outside portable toilets, in Woodstock: Three Days of Peace & Music

The 1960s dictum “be in your own movie” (from Ken Kesey and the Merry Pranksters) was indicative of the influence of mass-mediated representations over actual experience in the 1960s. Media mattered, even though the counterculture of popular memory emphasized direct experience over the virtual thing. The problem (or was it the possibility?) that many in fact ascertained at the time was that mass-mediated representation and actual experience — getting deep in the machine and back to the woods — were merging and melding in all sorts of new ways. Hence the love affair with Marshall McLuhan.

This brings us to the most important scene of that most important film, Woodstock: Three Days of Peace & Music. Despite the recent mud avalanche of nostalgia for the fortieth anniversary of the weekend of concerts, the film had far more influence after its release in 1970 than the actual festival in August of 1969.

The key scene comes toward the end of the film. It unlocks the whole movie — and the festival it memorialized. It shifts the focus of Woodstock from romantic innocence to topics far more vexing, difficult…and sour-smelling.

We are fast approaching festival’s end, with Jimi Hendrix soon to appear, famously playing a searing version of the “Star-Spangled Banner.” We have just watched Sly and the Family Stone and Janis Joplin perform prime time on Saturday night, and the Hog Farm has made “breakfast in bed for 400,000″ (as Hugh Romney, a.k.a. Wavy Gravy, put it from the stage before a mock-military-esque roll call played on trumpet). The film cuts to a truck that reads “portable chemical toilets.” Ladies and gentlemen, the Port-o-San scene.

PortosanWoodstock

The most important performer at Woodstock: Port-o-San Man.

It looks like we are about to witness the anti-Woodstock. Everything the counterculture sought to alter, all the artificial, plastic, disposable, deodorized, and disinfected faux-civilization that Woodstock’s mud, oatmeal, woods, and naked bodies in the lake sought to abandon for nature and the natural, it all seems to be encapsulated here.

And yet the scene that follows, titled “Port-o-San” on the DVD of Woodstock, is more haunting, more complicated, more evocative, than any famous musical performance in the film.

The camera pans from the truck to a middle-aged man dressed in a janitorial uniform. He is portly and balding but very friendly and jovial — this despite his job, which is cleaning portable toilets. “Man in here,” he says as he knocks on the toilet doors, then smiles. When he reaches the last one, it’s open and he discovers a cane. “Some poor fellow come looking for his cane,” the Port-o-San cleaner remarks.

It’s an odd moment: what is a cane, that quintessential symbol of old people, doing in this ur-film about youth? And how did it wind up in the portable toilet? Is the cane a kind of allegorical symbol of the older people who the hippies don’t want to become, trapped in their Port-o-Sans, avoiding nature and the real, only experiencing a deodorized box of plastic that barely covers up a world of shit below? Or is the cane a symbol of what is to come: the fall from grace after the bliss of innocent youth?

Maybe the cane is all of those things, which is why the scene is so important. The symbolism only grows as this movie-within-the-movie unfolds onscreen. The cleaning man sucks the shit out of the Port-a-San toilet with a giant hose. He dumps enormous amounts of disinfectant and deodorant within it to make it “a little more pleasanter when you use it.” He reloads the toilet paper, which is locked in its receptacle.

You can read the scene in multiple ways. It could be a critique of an American society that has sought to cover up with deodorant all that Woodstock refused to avoid, that must lock the toilet paper in a little box to keep it from getting stolen while Woodstock has made everything free.

Or, as I prefer to read the scene now, forty years later, it is the Woodstock festival itself getting sucked up into that sanitation tube. For, Woodstock was shit, and anyone who pretended otherwise was full of shit. But that didn’t mean that it wasn’t important. The place was a disaster; though, like many disasters, it contained infinite small deeds of kindness and care. “There’s always a little bit of heaven in a disaster area,” Wavy Gravy remarks in his breakfast speech.

But just after he says this, Wavy Gravy also conveys a kind of sense of the hopelessness lurking beneath the joy. Woodstock is not to be a revolutionary transformation, much as it might feel like that amid disaster. He requests that “you people who still believe, you know, that capitalism isn’t that weird” to buy a few hamburgers from a man whose stand burned down overnight. The point, buried in Wavy Gravy’s playful tone and tooth-gap grin, is that the larger mainstream system of capitalism may seem bizarre in a disaster area, but it it is far from disappearing as a system. Woodstock the film, bringing in millions of dollars, would soon prove this to be undeniably true. But for Wavy Gravy, the point is to help out the guy who has lost his business. The small gesture of connection and support, regardless of the larger system, is, for Wavy Gravy, the crucial political act.

There’s a tragic consciousness at work here, buried in the utopian fervor. This is the case even in (or maybe especially in) a man such as Wavy Gravy, who would go on to start a clown camp. And the tragic quality continues in the Port-o-San scene. This is the part of Woodstock that so often gets lost in remembrances and anti-nostalgic complaints alike.

Placed as it is toward the end of the Woodstock film, the mood of allegory weighs heavily in the Port-o-San scene. Into the cleaning man’s hose goes not only the shit from a toilet at Woodstock, but maybe also the compost of the counterculture’s entire utopian dream of revolution or evolution to a new world beyond the difficulties of the current one. Woodstuck’s muck and mire was proof that another world might be possible, but that it wasn’t going to happen by the end of the 1960s. Humankind was not actually going to get any more humane. Woodstock‘s participants couldn’t escape the larger system that easily. The Woodstock dream, too, would get sucked up into the tube.

But the Port-o-San scene itself also suggests that those utopian dreams still lurk, nutrients accreting in the sewage pipes of society. They leak out occasionally, though no one has ever figured out how to capture the energies buried in their rich sod of desire and fantasy.

The tragic tone of Woodstock that so many miss appears again in the final sequence of the film, as we view the festival site from a departing helicopter, viewing fields strewn with garbage, glimpsing a giant peace sign made out of the mess. The Port-o-San scene sets up this post-apocalyptic, ambiguous ending.

“My son’s here,” the Port-o-san man says to the camera crew at Woodstock, “and I got one over in Vietnam too.” Here we get to a startling aspect of Woodstock. The festival site strangely, bizarrely, links the muddied home front of the counterculture to the big muddy of Vietnam. The festival captured in the film became an odd film-strip negative of the war: choppers buzz overhead, but bring rock musicians instead of marines, thousands wander a wasteland, looking blasted and dazed, there’s a strange collision of advanced technology and mud, we see lots of destruction and shit and no one quite knowing what to do with it all, but among the chaos, there’s are moments of love. Of course, Woodstock was not a war zone, but it took place in the long shadow (both mediated and direct) of Vietnam.

In his simple, un-hippie-ish way, the Port-o-San cleaner offers a very decent response to the madness. There might be a little bit of heaven in a disaster area, as Wavy Gravy waxed ecstatically, but the toilets make clear that there’s a whole lot more hell. So, caught in the middle of it, the cleaning man admits that he can’t keep up with the crowds who need to use the facilities. All he can do is do his best to “make it a little more pleasanter.” He’s glad to help the kids, and his tone of voice suggests he loves both his sons unconditionally, the one at Woodstock and the one in Vietnam. His demeanor is less starry-eyed than Wavy Gravy, but, watching forty years later, it’s also more dignified. That a man makes cleaning up shit seem dignified is no small feat.

As the tired debates about the 1960s once again get trotted out this year (the only essays now more stale than the nostalgic odes to Woodstock are the anti-nostalgic screeds), the Port-o-San scene suggests we revisit Woodstock and Woodstock in a new way: not as a tale about escapism (to nature) but about engagement (with human society), not as a story about screaming guitars and rock stars, but as a tale about quiet men and women who did small deeds of charity among what felt like the lost cause of American life.

This wasn’t escapism. Port-o-San is the story buried within Woodstock the film, and Woodstock the memory. It’s a story of trying to cope — truly cope, even in failure — with the infrastructural and intersocial dilemmas of the complex, modern world. It’s the story of being overwhelmed by tragedy but still trying to make the world “a little more pleasanter.”

The telltale sign comes at the end of the Port-o-San scene. Emerging from a stall, a stoned hippie makes clear that Woodstock is not going to be an escape to the garden. We’re not going back to nature. The dream has got to happen within civilization, not outside it. And, for him, that’s fine. When asked how his visit to the facilities was, the anonymous hippie shrugs, tokes his pipe, and sums up where we’ll have to start: “Beats the woods,” he says, and strolls off into the morass.

#331 – The Public Health

Wednesday, August 19th, 2009

struggles over the care of bodies private and public.

What has been most fascinating about the otherwise utterly scary town hall protests by radical right wingers around the U.S. (guns and swastikas anyone?) is that these protests point to a larger struggle going on currently in Obama’s America: the struggle over who will control representations of the American public.

It is odd, but somehow fitting, that this larger contest over representing the public is taking place through an issue that is most of all about the intimate and private dimensions of our lives: the health care of our bodies.

Central to the right wing’s goals when disrupting town hall meetings was not only to shift public debate itself, but also to recast perceptions of who the public was. Whether coordinated or spontaneous or both, these protests rippled through the mass media with a new representation of public opinion: of what “the people” of the republic, the citizens, us in the U.S., were thinking.

Being noisy, putting private bodies and voices into public forums (or what passes for them), was an effective way to re-represent whose political opinions were legitimate and worthy of explicit political representation, in other words of who the public was and what they desired. Right-wing protesters transformed what seems to be, demographically-speaking, a small fringe population into the population writ large: the people were speaking, their protests suggested as they circulated through the media, and this public was saying that they might have to water the tree of liberty with their “natural manure.”

The struggle over the representation of the public is largely a matter of scale and mode of expression: in a mass society, an effective roar by a few citizens can overwhelm quieter but more widely-held opinions. And, if you think about it, what do we think and want, anyway? Privately, I would wager, many Americans have quite complex and intricate attitudes, particularly when it comes to the issue of health care. So the individuals in the American public, and the concept of the public itself, are both very amorphous.

And yet, in a democracy, the public is an essential — perhaps even required — concept. Whether one argues that consent gets manufactured in this public, or that opinions can arise authentically from debate and discussion, in order for democracy to be democratic, it requires a public. This social body has to arise out of private citizens whose opinions, whether freely-formed or manipulatively forged, define what seems normal and right. More importantly, this public’s opinion,  its perceived beliefs and values, give ballast to the actions of the state. Without the public, in a sense, there is no democracy — even a questionably democratic one.

So the public and how it gets represented is very important. Maybe this is why the left as well as the right has been spending so much time exploring how it might function now in the age of the blogosphere. Could a new kind of public emerge from online interactions of opinion and information? What sort of public?

The health care debate is becoming a test, in a sense, of the left’s ability to represent the public that supported and elected Obama. The idea (always a distortion) that the left was a small group of “latte-drinking” liberals controlling the larger American public no longer holds in post-Obama America. But then, what sort of public replaces this representation by the right of the left over the last ten or twenty years?

Yesterday, we began to see that new, amorphous public coming into view. Progressives were able to pressure their representatives in the House into making the “public option” (interesting appearance of that word, in this case as a representation of the state) a non-negotiable item for the health care bill that might emerge in Congress. And Internet-savvy activists flooded television and other forms of media to represent the constituents of those House reps — which we might call “the public,” of course, that is demanding the “public option.”

It helps, too, that the mass media itself has had to respond to these changes in the public by representing progressive voices and bodies. A station such as MSNBC is doing this for commercial gain, but commerce, like politics, is rooted in perceptions of who the public is and what they want.

Was it any accident, then, that this dramatic change in perceptions of the public debating — and the public debate over —health care occurred the same week as Netroots Nation? Probably just a coincidence, but a telling one. “Changing the face of progressive politics,” which Netroots Nation declares as its slogan, has everything to do with putting a new face on the public: who is in it and what it desires.

It turns out the health care of individual bodies has everything to do with the care paid to the social body. We live and die by what we think the public is and want it wants.

#330 – Echolocation #17: Darkening the Brightness

Tuesday, August 18th, 2009

at first it seems like utterly normal folk-rock, but then frontier ruckus’s “strangeness never ceases.”

fr_img03_hires

Frontier Ruckus, “Mona and Emmy,” Live at Paste Magazine

Frontier Ruckus‘s best song, “Mona and Emmy,” is not on the group’s new album, The Orion Songbook, though there are many good songs on that release. There is, however, a wonderful version of “Mona and Emmy” recorded for Live at Paste Magazine.

“Mona and Emmy” is a parable, but about what? At the Paste Magazine performance, lead singer Matthew Milla says it’s a “childhood love kind of song about this girl who I was childhoodly in love with.” He explains that the girl who he loved was from an evangelical family. When baptized by her father, she was surrounded by a hoard of black flies, which her father took to be a bad omen.

But that seems to only be partly what the song is about. It’s a kind of triangle love story, perhaps, between the singer, Mona, and Emmy. Or is it simply a moment poised between memory and the future, between a childhood love and an adult love? The song is certainly about sins committed and desires unquenchable, pranks gone awry and restlessness wrested into dreams, lost opportunities lost for good, and the renewal of spirit in remembering what’s gone and what still remains.

Most of all, it’s about the feeling of a summer night in a nameless small American town on the edge of the Interstate.

As the story unfolds, the singer is getting off work at the local market, where he works “nine to five around the hiss of the ice box compartment.” He and Mona, who has been buying milk and honey, seek to set the town on fire, but instead there’s just stillness, a wonderful kind of delicious American night stillness. Stirring the weeping willows like a gentle wind, the song’s chords float by, quintessential old-timey-folk-music-by-way-of-Neil-Young chords, as David Jones’s banjo clatters past like a train and trumpet player Zachary Nichols puffs a melody just behind. Anna Burch plays the role of Mona, the singer’s “only friend,” and together they share the memory of Emmy and her baptism and a second memory of the singer jokingly plunging Emmy’s head underwater while swimming one night, causing Emmy’s father to cry.

Wandering through the “neighborhoods from Mona’s house to the interstate,” the singer wants to flee “for railroad tracks in other towns,” but at the same time longs “to hold to something longer, something meaner, something stronger.” He urges Mona to depart with him, setting out on the Interstate to the promised land, but Mona points out that the Interstate dead ends, and together they ask: “Is the promised land just a funny way to say the strangeness never ceases?” At song’s end, Mona and the singer grasp at the memory of Emmy’s religious childhood: “‘Cause Emmy, you have baptized me to pieces.”

With every listen, the story keeps unfolding in a new ways. In fragments, the mystery of the song only expands into the starry sky. And as the singers’ voices blend and separate, as the banjo plucks into and out of the old chords, as the snare drum skip along and snap back, as the trumpet rises and falls on the simple chords, one discovers again—surely, sadly, thankfully, and quite miraculously—that the “strangeness never ceases.”

#329 – Highest Common Denominator

Tuesday, August 18th, 2009

envisioning the dream of the commons in mass culture.

An increase in scale does not always entail reductiveness: one effect of the best mass culture is to trace or forge the connections among the unprecedentedly diverse experiences of its unprecedentedly broad audience. When artists find this common ground, the experience, however fleeting, of so enormous a community is visionary and exalting. When they fail, they can retreat into an irony that thrives in the vast range and dense detail of American consumer culture.

- George Scialabba, writing against Dwight Macdonald’s “Masscult and Midcult”

#328 – Happy Anniversary!

Friday, August 14th, 2009

mr. fish reflects on the 60s.

FISH_Woodstock_40yrs-500

Image: Mr. Fish

#327 – Culture Rover’s Unfamiliar Quotations

Friday, August 14th, 2009

the economic democracy/cultural democracy problématique.

Lumping humanity into two categories, the noble and the rest, may seem to lend itself to anti-democratic sentiments or even to a violently reactionary form of politics. But Scialabba affirms the distinction without snobbery. Perhaps he suspects that the division runs right down the middle of most of us. Even so, it can undermine the will to egalitarianism. Economic leveling means giving more to those who have less. Cultural leveling seldom has that implication. How, then, to resolve the tension?

- Scott McLemee, “A Worried Mind,” Introduction to What Are Intellectuals Good For? Essays and Reviews by George Scialabba.

#326 – The Backlash of History

Tuesday, August 11th, 2009

a reaction against reactionary history.

David Kaiser’s recent, woe-is-me interview on the History News Network puts traditional history in the role of victim. He places practitioners of “new history” (now almost forty years old, but never mind) in the role of usurping pirates and mutinying crew.

Kaiser’s interview is striking for the ways in which he seems utterly tone deaf to the insights of the multiple approaches he lumps together willy-nilly as “new history.” Worse yet, his objections barely conceal what I can only call a muted racism and misogyny: blacks, browns, yellows, gays, and worst of all (gasp!) women, are suddenly in charge, demanding that their stories be told, too, and that they might too have a hand on the historical steering wheel; oh no, the ship of state might be steered in new directions, and the older modes of political history tossed overboard in favor of silly concerns about gender, language, and the role of those who have not successfully (or tragically, as Kaiser’s own work makes known) concentrated governmental or economic power in their hands!

There are two intertwined strands to Kaiser’s complaint that deserve untangling:

The first is a methodological knot he seeks to unkink. Kaiser wishes to place language and ideology back in the hands of masterful historical actors and he wants to insist that history is about reconstructing the past as those powerful figures understood themselves. “There is an intrinsic interest to studying decisions that affect the lives of millions,” he argues. “Personalities of people like Wilson, Roosevelt, LBJ, Nixon, Westmoreland, etc., are also inherently interesting.”

In contrast to these “inherently interesting” men, Kaiser seems to reject histories that seek to understand the (maybe also inherently interesting?) contexts in which they lived. He points to Frank Costigliola’s explorations of George F. Kennan’s gendered language in shaping understandings of the early Cold War among American diplomats. “That’s a problem,” Kaiser argues, “with post-modernist history, looking for ‘gendered’ language and such in the past.” To Kaiser, “they are not studying the past as such, not asking what words meant to those who used them.”

But the whole point of the new history (social history, cultural history, women’s history, labor history, whatever subfields are not traditional diplomatic and political history) was to explore more carefully “the past as such.” These historians sought to ask whether historical actors themselves were products of history, shaped by the frameworks of larger linguistic, cultural, and ideological forces. They noticed that you couldn’t just ignore the kink in the methodological rope.

Kaiser will have none of this. Without providing much evidence, he asserts that, “What you have to understand is that the new history has given up the idea that the past can be recreated as it really was.” But this has always been the point of “new history”: to investigate carefully the “real” in “really was.”

This first complaint is an age-old one: as Kaiser himself admits, powerful men such as George F. Kennan “don’t make them with complete freedom of action”; and he grants that “sophisticated historians have always understood that.” But for Kaiser, the methodological strand of his complaint is tied up with another problem, one that makes his commentary far more troubling.

His second, and related, complaint is that new historians are relativists. Kaiser simply refuses to engage with the vexing questions of historical objectivity that new history raises. Instead, he dismisses all new history for its “postmodernist” subjectivity and insists that it is dominated by the “assumption that history is simply a matter of valorizing certain people over others.”

I can only describe this second gripe as close-minded, even reactionary; it seeks to close down debate in the name of Kaiser’s asserted version of the truth. And that, upon reflection, seems far more relativistic than anything new history has ever come up with.

I would argue that almost no “new” historians are the relativists Kaiser fears. They have only asked new questions of existing archival materials, sought out untapped sources that raise new perspectives, and explored new categories of analysis. They have not rejected objectivity in doing so, but rather have sought to more carefully expand its scope and, simultaneously, to probe its complexities. Kaiser refuses to see this. And his response to the new history tilts toward a Horowitzian (as in David of the “101 most dangerous academics”) anxiety about new voices and perspectives shaping how we understand the past.

There is a nostalgia in Kaiser’s words for an older kind of worldview, one in which powerful men make history through limited channels of state power or economic might while everyone else has history made for them. This nostalgia barely hides a reactionary backlash against new ways of viewing the world–and maybe also the new people doing that viewing.

Kaiser wants his history to only be about those men “who, by virtue of the positions they occupy, make decisions upon which the lives, property and happiness of thousands, and sometimes millions of people depend.” And he patronizingly dismisses the study of other historical actors as not “the past…as it really was.” His seething resentment against broadening the historical terrain is most striking (and revealing) when he says the following:

I was in grad school when social history was having an impact. It—like women’s history, the history of sexuality, etc., later—was sold as a way to broaden out history by adding previously understudied topics.

Um, it’s not that women or sexuality (or race, or class, or culture, or add to the list) were legitimate and innovative new ways of exploring the past objectively. No, in Kaiser’s form of infantile historical objectivity, they were merely “sold” to unsuspecting and naïve (and feminized?) consumers who were bamboozled into thinking they were true.

“There’s only so much room in the garden,” Kaiser insists of ye old Edenic traditional history, when Adam was in charge until Eve ate the apple, “and the new species are crowding out the old, and replicating themselves much faster.”

Watch out! Those “replicating” weeds of nature have overrun paradise for Kaiser. But maybe it’s more accurate to say that the messy past of historical time as it “really was” has arrived. Better board your ship of state, Noah, and batten down the hatches to survive the flood.

A few related articles: