Coffee with Chou chats up "The Cult of the Amateur" author Andrew Keen, and blogger giant Robert Scoble.
Coffee with Chou chats up “The Cult of the Amateur” author Andrew Keen, and blogger giant Robert Scoble.
Coffee with Chou chats up “The Cult of the Amateur” author Andrew Keen, and blogger giant Robert Scoble.
I realize I wrote extensively yesterday about the American media’s typically mindless, nationalistic, war-craving hyping of The Iranian Threat — completely redolent of what they did in 2002 and 2003 toward Iraq — but I just saw this two-minute ABC News report from Diane Sawyer and Brian Ross that sinks to even lower depths than what I highlighted yesterday. It has to be seen to be believed. It’s a perfect museum exhibit for how empty-headed American media stars uncritically recite whatever they are told by government officials, exaggerate or fabricate bad acts by the designated Enemy du Jour while ignoring and suppressing the precipitating acts of America and its client states, and just generally do whatever they can to keep fear levels and war thirst as high as possible. This is nothing short of irresponsible propagandistic trash:
Sawyer begins by warning of “a kind of shadow war being waged by Iran around the world” — based on her blind acceptance of totally unproven Israeli accusations that Iran was behind three bombings yesterday in India, Georgia and Thailand, and without any mention of the constant attacks on Iran over the course of several years by the U.S. and Israel. After seeing video of ABC‘s Martha Raddatz riding on U.S. naval warships into the Strait of Hormuz, we are told by Sawyer — echoing the warnings just yesterday from Alan Dershowitz, Ethan Bronner, and some NYPD official — that “Israeli and Jewish facilities, including those here in the U.S., are on heightened alert,” and then Brian Ross is brought in to warn that “the violence could spill over into the U.S.” as “Jewish places of worship in at least ten U.S. cities have been told that they could be targets.” This, you see, “follows what appears to be the increasingly violent series of attacks by Iran.”
The State Department spokesperson is then brought in “to tie the incidents to Iran”; we hear her warn that “we are concerned about use of international terrorism by Iran or anyone else against Israel or any innocents.” Richard Clarke is then hauled out to say that Iran is sending a signal to Israel that it can retaliate using “its terrorist network.” Needless to say, no contrary information or critical sources are included: no Iranians are heard from and there’s nobody to question any of these accusations. It’s just one-sided, unchallenged government claims masquerading as a news report.
Note that this entire story is based on pure fabrication — not just by accepting as Truth the Israeli and American accusation that Iran is behind these attacks, but far worse, continuously warning about Iranian attacks on synagogues and other targets inside the U.S. There is literally zero evidence that any of that is happening. The text on the website of ABC News displaying the Sawyer/Ross story expressly says: “Federal officials told ABC News that there is so far no specific intelligence of any threat to Israeli interests in the U.S.” (that didn’t make it into the TV broadcast). Yet here we have multiple media outlets — including ABC – issuing incredibly inflammatory “warnings” that Iran may launch Terrorist attacks on Jewish houses of worships and other targets on U.S. soil, all based on pure speculation and fabrication. To call that reckless is to understate the case: given Sawyer’s continuous 2002-like fear-mongering, it seems much more concerted than mere recklessness. And it should all sound very familiar; from October, 2002:
. . .
. . .
Does anyone remember any of that happening? But that, at least, was merely about all the “horrific” things Saddam would do inside the U.S. if attacked; these latest reports are assertions that Iran will attack inside the U.S. even without being attacked. Meanwhile, here’s a little trip down memory lane of the numerous American media outlets containing warnings that Saddam was behind attempted and actual Terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. And here’s a March 9, 2003 New York Times article — typical at the time — uncritically repeating Bush administration claims that Saddam was harboring and tolerating all sorts of Al Qaeda Terrorists inside Iraq.
But the most destructive part of this state-subservient journalism is how it completely suppresses the actions of the U.S. and Israel that have precipitated all of this. While we are warned of Iran’s “terrorist network” and the “shadow war being waged by Iran around the world,” there is (other than a fleeting reference by Ross to the killing of Iranian nuclear scientists) no mention, as usual, of the multiple acts of aggression by the U.S. and Israel aimed at Iran nor the endless stream of threats made to attack that country. The U.S. media eagerly depicts Iran as the latest Saddam — some sort of maniacal, aggressive regime that, for some strange and inscrutable reason, continuously engages in Terrorism and poses threats to the U.S. and Israel without any provocation or cause — all in service of depicting the U.S. and Israeli Governments as the peaceful victims defending the world from all that is Bad, and its designated Enemies as the root of all evil.
In other words, the American media is doing what it always does in these cases, which is precisely why Diane Sawyer and Brian Ross should have a museum exhibit devoted to their behavior here. The only surprising part of any of this is that they do not seem to believe that they even need to pretend to be doing anything different than what they did in 2002 and 2003. They seem perfectly comfortable making it as clear as can be that they are reading from the exact same script.
Bob Dole and Mitt Romney (Credit: AP)
A flood of new data points to one clear conclusion: At least for now, President Obama and his Republican opponents are heading in opposite directions.
A CBS News/New York Times poll released last night puts Obama’s approval rating at 50 percent — his best performance in that survey since the spring of 2010 (not counting last May’s brief bin Laden bounce). The poll also shows Obama enjoying his best score since the summer of ’10 on his handling of the economy and his best score since at least late 2009 (when the question was first asked) on job creation, and finds voters voters more optimistic than they’ve been in nearly two years on the overall direction of the economy.
This comports with other recent surveys. According to RealClearPolitics’ database, three polls released in the last two weeks have the president’s job approval at or over 50 percent. Before this, you have to go all the way back to the very end of the bin Laden bounce, in mid-June, to find a single poll with Obama that high. (In that same span, three surveys put his approval rating below 40 percent.) The relationship between Obama’s improving fortunes and the economic headlines of the past few months — declining unemployment since last September punctuated by a jarringly strong January jobs report — seems undeniable.
But something else is happening too. Since the start of the year, the general election positioning of Obama’s would-be Republican challengers has eroded as their intraparty fight has intensified.
Mitt Romney, who despite his latest crisis remains the favorite to capture the GOP nomination, was running two points ahead of Obama — 47 to 45 percent — in a CBS/NYT poll released just after New Year’s, but he now trails by six. In fact, Romney has run behind the president in every poll released this month, with RealClearPolitics pegging his average deficit at nearly six points. Romney’s slippage is particularly pronounced among independent voters. A Pew poll earlier this week showed him nine points behind Obama among them; three months ago, Romney led the same group by 12. Nor is Rick Santorum, the latest Consensus Romney Alternative to emerge in the GOP race, any better positioned. In the CBS/NYT poll, he loses to Obama by eight points.
There is, to be sure, reason to take this all with a grain of salt. Primary seasons can be rough and candidates who end up performing well in the fall can look terribly vulnerable during their nomination campaigns; the story of Bill Clinton in 1992 comes to mind. And the encouraging economic news of the past few months could give way to demoralizing headlines in the months ahead, reversing Obama’s polling gains and lowering his approval rating to crisis levels.
But the convergence of the best economic news of Obama’s presidency with a messy GOP nominating contest also calls to mind the path that the last Democratic president took to reelection.
Like Obama, Bill Clinton began the 1996 cycle on the heels of an epic midterm election defeat and with the opposition party convinced it had found the formula to defeat him. But the Republican Party’s image plunged in 1995 and early ’96, the product of overreach by its new congressional majority and the toxic antics of a House speaker named Newt Gingrich, while the economy — and Clinton’s approval scores — improved. By the time Bob Dole, who suffered an embarrassing series of early primary season defeats (including to Pat Buchanan in New Hampshire), finally secured the GOP nomination he was running far behind Clinton. And despite predictions throughout the spring of ’96 that the race would ultimately tighten, it never really did.
After his defeat, Dole was known to lament that the election had come two years too late. Obama’s recent gains are tenuous, but it seems a lot more likely now than it did a few months ago that the 2012 Republican nominee will end up saying the same thing.
* * *
I was on MSNBC’s “The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell” last night and talked about Santorum’s surge, Romney’s struggles, and Obama’s good fortune. Here’s the segment:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Chris Brown performs at the 54th annual Grammy Awards on Sunday. (Credit: AP/Mario Anzuoni)
It’s a great time to be a domestic abuser. Just last week, not a single Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act – a law that in 2000 and 2005 swept easily through the renewal process. While saying he “supports this law, always has,” Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, did helpfully offer some changes – including, according the New York Times, “a huge reduction in authorized financing, and elimination of the Justice Department office devoted to administering the law and coordinating the nation’s response to domestic violence and sexual assaults.” Surely those contentious new provisions that would offer protection to gay, lesbian and transgender victims as well as undocumented aliens wouldn’t have anything to do with the holdup. Writing for GOPUSA last Tuesday, the perennially terrible Phyllis Schlafly crowed that the move was “a refreshing indication that Republicans are no longer intimidated by feminist demands” over a law that was “promoting divorce, breakup of marriage and hatred of men.” Well, thank God we dodged that bullet. Now just fend for yourself dodging the real bullets, ladies.
We’ve also seen the surprisingly low-key response to the arrest Sunday of Hugh Hefner’s son Marston on a domestic abuse charge. The younger Hefner is accused of assaulting his girlfriend Claire Sinclair, the 2011 Playmate of the Year. The Los Angeles Times reports that police, responding to a domestic assault call, “determined Sinclair had suffered minor injuries consistent with an assault” – and a photo of a bruised Sinclair on TMZ seems to corroborate.
Sinclair says she doesn’t want to press charges “if [Hefner] keeps his word to give a public apology for physically abusing me on several occasions, and seeks psychiatric help for his anger issues.” (She has, however, sought a temporary restraining order.) And ever since the news broke, the always-classy TMZ commenters have been busy calling Sinclair “a whore [who] deserves everything she got,” “gold-digging trash,” and “a ho ass liar.” Because girls who pose naked in magazines and date the boss’ son shouldn’t be surprised when they wind up bruised, right?
Hef himself, meanwhile, has been expectedly tight-lipped about the altercation. He did tell People this week that “If they care about each other, they’ll patch it up.” Sure, sometimes couples get in fights and they turn physical on both sides. But that’s a hell of a hopeful response to having your son accused of beating his girlfriend – a woman you know and work with, by the way. A word or two about how it’s not okay to hit the ladies, that the Playboy empire does not condone violence, might have been nice to add, as well.
But the biggest winner this Abuse-uary has been Chris Brown. Brown, who pleaded guilty to felony assault in 2009 for the beating of his then-girlfriend Rihanna — and has been known to go berserkers after TV appearances and fire off a homophobic tweet or two for good measure — was off to a rocky start Thursday when a Los Angeles judge denied his request to end his supervised probation early for good behavior. But by Sunday, he was all over the Grammys – performing in not one but two frantic numbers and snagging the prize for best R&B album.
The most demoralizing thing about Brown’s triumph – sadder, even, than his bat-winged backup dancers — was the way in which it set off a grotesque array of supportive, “go ahead and hit me” responses on the Internet. Perhaps inspired by Brown’s track record, Buzzfeed quickly slapped something up — a collection of tweets and Facebook updates from viewers who declared they’d be happy to let Chris Brown beat them to a pulp. A banner night for Brown – a Grammy and a deluge of offers to “punch me in the face.”
You can’t judge a civilization on the dumb comments people leave on Twitter and TMZ. But you can wonder what would happen if we valued each other enough to start from a place where no one “deserves” or invites abuse. As Roxane Gay eloquently explained in The Rumpus, “We fail you every single time a (famous) man treats a woman badly, without legal, professional or personal consequence.” And the failure isn’t just in the relative ease with which the Violence Against Women Act can be brushed aside or a girlfriend beater can win music’s highest honors. The failure is renewed every time we shame and blame women based on how they dress or what they do for a living, or romanticize assault as something to be patched up or playfully pleaded for. The failure is whenever we decide that violence is a legislative inconvenience or a joke. The failure isn’t just at the end of a man’s fist. It’s in the culture that condones him.
Gary Oldman as Sid Vicious, Count Dracula and George Smiley
A woman in the audience gets up to ask Gary Oldman a question. He’s finally been nominated for an Academy Award, 26 years after his breakthrough performance in “Sid and Nancy,” she says, but it’s for the quietest and most subdued role of his entire career. He has played Beethoven and Dracula and Lee Harvey Oswald, as well as Sid Vicious; does he regret that “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” didn’t allow him to show more emotional range?
Oldman is a reflective, soft-spoken fellow who considers questions carefully before answering them, but he doesn’t have to think about this one. “It was greatly liberating, powerfully liberating, to play George Smiley,” he says. If he plays a character who’s called upon to cry, Oldman explains, “Those are Gary’s tears. They have to be real. I’ve had to feel that grief or that anger, and then the performance is contaminated by that emotion.” With Smiley, he goes on, he didn’t have to display that emotion on the outside; the character is a profoundly melancholy, even tragic figure, but all that emotion is bottled up inside, in the classic English style.
Oldman recently made a brief visit to New York, to talk about the first Oscar nomination of a circuitous acting career that has taken him from the British indie fringe of the mid-’80s to major Hollywood roles and video games. (He is most famous among the schoolmates of his teenage sons, he says, for supplying the voice of Sgt. Reznov in the “Call of Duty” series.) I got to spend some time with him in two different settings: First as the moderator of a question-and-answer session at Manhattan’s Sunshine Cinema, following a screening of “Tinker Tailor,” and then the next morning over coffee at Oldman’s Upper East Side hotel.
A performer of tremendous, almost chameleonic flexibility, and something of a cult figure for many younger actors and film fans, Oldman has never been in exactly the right spot for an Oscar to land on top of him. As the star of “Sid and Nancy” and “Prick Up Your Ears,” he was too edgy and too English. As a memorable character actor in Hollywood movies like “JFK” and “True Romance,” he perhaps seemed too damaged and disturbing. (Oldman explains that he settled on a key detail of the “True Romance” character after interviewing a Brooklyn teenager, who told him to replace the word “titties” with “breasteses.”) His ’90s roles as a leading man (“Immortal Beloved,” “The Scarlet Letter,” “Lost in Space”) never clicked in quite the right way, although we should make an exception for Francis Ford Coppola’s flawed but gorgeous 1992 “Dracula.”
Now, at age 53, Oldman finds himself — as he ruefully puts it — almost an “elder statesman” of the film business. On “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy,” he says, he got to work with both John Hurt, an actor he has long idolized, and Tom Hardy, a younger actor who idolizes him. “I might like to think of Tom as a peer and a contemporary, but I’ve got almost 20 years on him,” Oldman says. “He’ll say to me, ‘Gary, I watched all your films when I was a kid.’”
As Oldman told the Sunshine audience, getting to play John le Carré’s legendary spymaster was an amazing opportunity, but one he approached with trepidation and nearly refused. He was “absolutely petrified” about taking a role so strongly identified with Alec Guinness, who played Smiley in the legendary BBC miniseries of the early ’80s. “You’ve got a knight of the realm, one of the most famous and most beloved British actors in our history. And if you asked almost anyone in the U.K., or at least anyone over a certain age, ‘Who is George Smiley?’ they’d say, ‘Oh, right, that’s Alec Guinness.’”
But just as director Tomas Alfredson’s chilly, modernist take on le Carré’s novel feels entirely different from the boxy claustrophobia of the TV series, Oldman’s Smiley is quite a different creation from Guinness’. “No doubt there are parts of the character where I wind up in the same place as Alec Guinness,” Oldman says, “but I’d like to think there are things in Smiley he didn’t find. Ultimately, I think his Smiley might be a bit more huggable. I think there’s a coldness, even a sadism to the character as I play him.”
Across these two conversations, I found Oldman to be an exceptionally thoughtful and gentlemanly person, much closer in manner to the quiet but deadly Smiley than to the unstable, violent or passionate characters he was known for in his youth. Oldman’s working-class London accent has been softened by nearly two decades in Los Angeles; he actually worked with an accent coach to make sure his performance as Smiley carried the correct upper-class Oxonian overtones. (“I was casting about a little bit to find his voice. And then I got to meet John le Carré, and said, ‘Thank you very much. I’ll take that.’”)
If anything, Oldman comes across as an intensely private person who isn’t terribly comfortable with the glare of celebrity, which may partly account for the fact that his leading-man career never quite took off and he’s never previously been nominated by the Academy. He talks about film, theater and literature with obvious passion and knowledge, and never seems to give rehearsed answers. For instance, he says he’s enjoyed playing Sirius Black in the “Harry Potter” series and Commissioner Gordon in the “Dark Knight” films, but also makes clear that those roles have been personally and financially beneficial. In the 2000s, he found himself raising two sons after a divorce, and didn’t want to be an absentee dad. “I didn’t want to be away from home all the time, and then I also didn’t want to be the kind of father who dragged them all over the world. Doing those kinds of roles in those kinds of movies, you’re making the most amount of money for the least amount of time.”
Oldman is a genuine movie lover, a connoisseur of cinematography, costuming and music — which makes him a particularly gratifying interview subject. While we were standing backstage waiting for the closing credits of “Tinker Tailor” to wind up, he talked about the piano theme, spreading his fingers on an imaginary keyboard: “Listen to that, so lovely. Then it goes all Russian!” When I meet him for coffee the next morning, we begin talking about the American movies of the 1970s that he likes best, starting with Roman Polanski’s “Chinatown.”
You were talking last night about your relationship with Los Angeles, and it struck me that you don’t view the city as an outsider or a visitor, at least not anymore. It sounds like you love the place, and have complicated feelings toward it.
It’s a shame about California, and particularly about L.A., where they’ve demolished so many landmarks. It’s a bit of a disease there, where if anything is over 30 years old, they sort of knock it down and replace it. It’s a strange town, it’s this sprawling suburb, and then there’s a city, the old town. It’s as if someone wanted to build a New York or a Chicago, they got only so far and they gave up. They just abandoned it. I’ve lived there for 17 years, and I’ve grown rather fond of the place.
I’m guessing you must like “Chinatown,” both because it’s your kind of movie and also because it captures so much of that urge to destroy and rebuild.
Oh, yeah, “Chinatown.” Sometimes it takes an outsider. If you look at Schlesinger’s “Midnight Cowboy,” it’s such a microcosm of New York life at that time. He captured something about New York that was extraordinary. Polanski did much the same. Or a native can do it, a real native — Scorsese or Woody Allen with New York, P.T. Anderson with L.A. and the Valley.
Here’s another thing: These films, like “Chinatown” — these movies were mainstream! You try to say to a younger generation, who are watching these movies on DVD, and getting their sense of history through that: “The Conversation,” “Dog Day Afternoon,” “Network,” “Chinatown,” “All the President’s Men,” “Marathon Man,” “Taxi Driver.” They were the movies you went to see at the cinema! They weren’t particularly art-house movies. They played everywhere.
Sure. I went to see “Taxi Driver” with my dad at the mall, in suburban California. It’s a little bit hard to imagine that particular movie playing there now.
Yeah, that’s right. It’s “Puss in Boots.”
I feel like the early part of your career, from the late ’80s to the early ’90s, almost belongs to that era of movie history. I can’t imagine Coppola’s “Dracula” being made now, or not the way you did it.
Well, I certainly think that — “Dracula,” for instance, it’s such a romantic movie. If you made it now, it would be a whole different animal. First of all, you’re competing against the market that has movies like “Paranormal Activity.” You’d have to deal with the scare factor. It was such a romantic take on the genre, and the book. This sort of tragic love story. I don’t know if people would want that now.
They could turn it into a “Twilight” movie. You guys were a couple of decades ahead of the curve on that one!
Right. I mean the people that write checks might not want it. I’m not talking about an audience. And then there was that slump in my career. People say to me, “Oh, there was a while where you disappeared.” There were many factors. I took a bit of a back seat, I had kids and I wanted to focus on them. There’s that period in the late ’90s, the early 2000s, where I didn’t do a great deal. People say, “Oh, you had a slump in your career.” And I say, “Really? Name me a movie. Name me a great movie from those years that I’d have wanted to be in.” That was a real strange seismic shift in the industry. That was when it all really started to change.
A great deal of it was being exported, suddenly, and the kind of movies that they were making was very different. I was lucky — I caught the very tail end of the indie thing, coming out of the late ’70s and going into the ’80s. With “Sid and Nancy” and “Prick Up Your Ears,” those were the last of that. Then there was the Merchant-Ivory phenomenon, that happened for a while. And then Tarantino, with that voice, that great marriage of action and dialogue, the like of which we’d never seen before.
But if you go back to those ’70s movies, you can’t imagine those being made today. I watched “Network” recently, funnily enough — I was on an Air New Zealand flight. Do you know there’s not a note of music in that film? Not a note. And it holds up. It just works. Those stunning performances from people, especially Robert Duvall, who is marvelous in it. You think of Finch, of course, and Faye Dunaway. But for me it was Robert Duvall and, of course, Ned Beatty. You remember him? When he gets him into the office, and they do that scene down that long table, gives him that speech?
I’m sure we could talk about ’70s films for a couple of hours, but why don’t you tell me about the moment when you found out you’d been nominated for the Oscar.
I was in Berlin, rather fittingly. I was in the middle of what I thought would be my last interview for “Tinker Tailor.” We were opening the movie there, and it was around 2:30 in the afternoon. My manager was watching the announcements in the hotel bar, and he came in looking flustered and a little teary-eyed, and said, “You’re an Academy Award nominee.”
We were already having anticipatory disappointment and anger. “Let’s just get angry early” — you know what I mean? Before we heard, I asked him, “Are you all right?” And he said, oh, he was just getting pissed off in advance. Tomas Alfredson, the director, went out for a walk. He couldn’t take it. So he was out walking around at the Brandenburg Gate. If one had taken the temperature for the last month, with the SAG Awards and the Globes, we weren’t part of it. So I wasn’t expecting anything. It was quite a shock.
I think I said this last night: You can let it overwhelm you and stress you out, give you anxiety. You can be cynical about it, or you can be, I think, overly modest — “I am not worthy,” that kind of thing. Or you can enjoy it. And I’m just having a great, great time, riding in the front cabin. It’s nice up there!
People in my position spend a lot of time fretting about whether the Oscars still mean anything to the culture at large, whether they mean what they used to, and so on. I wonder how that question looks to you. Do you feel like you’ve finally been accepted as a son and brother in Hollywood, after all these years?
I mean, I’ve never felt excluded, exactly. I am a participating member of the Academy and all that. But I think the answer is yes. You become an elder statesman, don’t you? A veteran. I’ve put the years in, I’ve got quite a body of work. And it’s particularly nice for me that it happened with this film and this character. I know some people who’ve been in this situation who have not had a good time. They get nominated, and they didn’t have a particularly good time on the movie, or they might not like the director. That’s got to be bittersweet, because you’re excited for yourself that you’ve been acknowledged, and yet you have a taste in your mouth from the experience.
This was a Rolls-Royce from the beginning, with Tim Bevan and Working Title, Robyn Slovo, the producer, Tomas Alfredson, the director — and this fucking cast of actors! You know? So I’m very happy that it happened with this one. And we’ll see, who knows. It’s an achievement to make the top five.
And then, what you mentioned about the Oscar — where it is culturally, does it still mean the same thing, all of that. It certainly feels like it does from the inside, that’s for sure. It’s a big deal from where I’m sitting. What it means to the public — it’s a question I’ve never really asked anyone, you know? It’s never really come up. As an insider, you can take it or leave it, you can be cynical, you can dismiss it. It’s easy to be on the outside and criticize it. To me, the Golden Globes — that one is a puzzlement. There’s not one journalist I’ve spoken to who hasn’t had a comment or made a remark. Or rolled their eyes, as you are doing now. [Laughter.]
As you say, you’ve got quite a body of work, but this role feels quite distinct. Smiley is so quiet and calm, and you have a reputation for playing exaggerated, emotional characters. So much of the film is you being impassive, or at least seemingly impassive, underreacting rather than overreacting.
I’m excited and happy about the nomination precisely because of that. It’s not so showy, so extroverted. There’s a lot going on, but it’s like a simmer, isn’t it? It’s a small flame. It’s ironic, I suppose. There have been a few in the repertoire that have been more bombastic and showy, but I have to say this feels right. I don’t know — does that make sense? It’s a more mature piece of work.
I agree. I get such a powerful sense of depression or melancholy from Smiley. From the whole movie, actually, but especially from this tremendously still and quiet performance you give at the center of the movie. It’s like all the anxiety and sadness of postwar England compressed into one guy.
Well, he’s a romantic. A disenchanted romantic, one of the last. And he’s having to deal with these people, these new people in this new war, where it’s God versus Marx. There are suddenly all these questions, all these philosophies to deal with. I thought when I was working on it, “What would a psychiatrist, a therapist, say to Smiley in this day and age?” Look at that relationship [with his constantly unfaithful wife], it’s very dysfunctional, it’s very inappropriate. Someone might say to him, “Why don’t you feel that you deserve more than Ann? Why are you happy with scraps from the table, and not a full meal?” Those are the questions I asked myself; that’s what I was playing. That sadness that he carries around. I think, also, that he knows that the mole is Bill Hadon [played by Colin Firth] before I let you know it’s Hadon. So there’s this double betrayal.
When he talks about meeting Karla [the legendary KGB spymaster], and I have that monologue …
Yeah, about meeting Karla and figuring out his weakness. Which is such a great scene.
Smiley feels a little bit responsible for creating Karla, because he was the one person Smiley couldn’t crack, and he got away. And subsequently Karla became Karla — you see, I’m not being cuckolded by Bill Hadon, I’m being cuckolded by a man who’s thousands of miles away, this is how clever he is. But Smiley invites Peter Gwillam [Benedict Cumberbatch] up and they have whiskey, and then Smiley says to him, indirectly, don’t have a relationship. You want to be successful in this business? Don’t be involved. It’s his way of saying, I let him go, you see? Maybe you should tidy up your own affairs. [Long pause.] It’s fucking brutal, it gets me every time. The casualties of it.
I also found it chilling when Smiley says he has found Karla’s weakness, and that’s the fact that he’s a zealot, a true believer. Which raises the question of what Smiley believes in, or if he believes in anything. It’s the great mystery of the character.
Well, he’s become cynical, and the cynicism is there in the writing. I think it’s there in great writing. I think Arthur Miller has it, Tennessee Williams has it. I don’t even think great writers are even conscious of it, but there is that thing: Are we any better than you, when we think about it? Aren’t we really the same? What’s it all about?
Now we’re lucky. We look back at that period and we wonder: Should we have been as paranoid as we were? Perhaps not. What was all that about? But at the time, you know, it all felt very different. It’s an extraordinary piece of writing, a terrific creation. I’m very fortunate to have gotten to play it.
Colby Keller (Credit: Greg Endries/Salon)
Colby Keller isn’t your regular gay porn star. The tall and scruffy former art student has distinguished himself from the rest of the industry not only by his unconventionally hipster aesthetic, but by his unconventional interests. In his well-read blog, the Big Shoe Diaries, Keller writes about everything from Marxism to Foucault to his and his friends’ art projects. Keller’s blog is a testament to the way porn celebrity is changing in the 21st century, as performers face the increasingly difficult task of distinguishing themselves in a sea of free or pirated content. It’s also incredibly charming.
One of Keller’s most memorable obsessions is his search for images of penises in unexpected places. In a playful feature called “I See Penis,” he collects images of phallic objects from around the world, sent to him by readers. We collected some of the most memorable entries, and spoke to Colby about penises, the generational divide in gay culture and what it’s like to be a 21st-century porn celebrity.
So how did this series get started?
We started off doing “I See Asshole” and “I See Vagina,” and then came “I see Penis.” For whatever reason the joke never wears off. There’s always something a little funny about these penises because sex is something everybody thinks about and it’s ever-present and finds itself replicated consciously and unconsciously all around us and yet we’re supposed to ignore it. There’s something magical about sexuality, that it can do that. And penises are just these weird things you’ve got on your bodies. They change. They get hard. And they’re visual, which is partly why when you get into a bathroom stall, you want to draw a giant penis on the wall.
So you put out a call to action on the blog? And people started sending in photos?
Occasionally I’ll ask people to submit things, but mostly people just do it on their own, and “I See Penis” is the No. 1 submission I get. I get so many of them, I can’t post them. I feel kind of bad because I had a whole file of photos people have sent me and it’s hard to get to them all.
Your blog has a much more diverse and unconventional following than most porn performers’ blogs. Why do you think that is?
I don’t want to say anything negative about my fellow performers, but some of their sites can be porn-heavy and about their relationships to other porn stars. Unless you’re really engaged by gay porn culture, it’s probably not that interesting to a wider audience. and a lot of it is self-promotional. I do a lot of that on my blog, but it’s kind of ridiculous because I’m not a big giant porn star. I joke that I’m the supporting cast. And I think that kind of self-deprecating humor in general is attractive to people.
Right. Your persona on the blog isn’t really that of the conventional porn star. You’re much more of a normal guy, who’s interested in art and other more highbrow things, the kind of gay guy a lot of people would want to be friends with.
I once had a really offensive conversation with a former friend in a car and he was interrogating me, asking, “Who is Colby Keller?” He wanted Colby to be this Midwestern yokel who’s not very smart and going on and on. It was this really horrible vision he had of me as a performer. I decided that it’s actually more interesting if Colby Keller is just a part of myself. It was kind of an experiment, that maybe people would find that interesting and maybe they wouldn’t.
There seems to be increasing pressure on porn performers to create personal brands for themselves, by tweeting and blogging all the time. Do you think it’s a reflection of how the industry is changing?
A lot of studios have less invested in promoting models and it’s a lot harder because there’s a lot of free porn out there. But I think what people find appealing about porn stars on Facebook and Twitter is they want a real person. They don’t necessarily want someone who’s always performing as a sex worker, and I think that may be a kind of a mistake a lot of people go down. I think people who have more successful porn personas are ones that are closer to themselves as human beings. Going back to when I was younger, there was a porn performer I really liked, and I would envision him as my boyfriend. But I also didn’t want my boyfriend to be a sex worker all the time, I wanted him to be a real person. I think that helps a porn performer if he makes himself real to people rather than just writing, “I’m on set today with so-and-so and he has a big dick!” I blog about work on occasion, but I think on Facebook and Twitter people want something honest and real.
I was shooting with someone recently who asked me if I identified as gay or straight and I asked him what he was, and he said, “I’m uncomfortable identifying as gay.” But I could tell from the way he was telling it to me that it wasn’t because he was insecure with his sexuality, it was that he didn’t identify with gay culture and that’s kind of where I’m at. I feel very out of place when I go to Chelsea or West Hollywood. I think there are a lot of younger kids for whom that kind of gay ghetto culture no longer makes sense, and as they’re more accepted by broader society that culture will disappear. It’s about redefining ourselves and who we are and what kind of role our sexuality plays in our everyday lives.
Page 1 of 15134 in All Salon
The GOP’s emerging Bob Dole problem
The Senate and Grammys condone domestic abuse
Interview: Gary Oldman talks about his first Oscar nomination
A match made on Craigslist adult services
Can’t see the forest for the wood
The things I carry
When I lost the ability to type
Pop art, the beaded edition
The beautiful banality of high school
The unemployed meet MacArthur’s tanks