Lebensraum

Get out. Our home now.

We’re driving our wagons out west.Get out. Our home now.

We’re driving our wagons out west.Get out. Our home now.
We’ve got a chunk of Mexico.

We’re driving our wagons out west.Get out. Our home now.
We’ve got a chunk of Mexico. We’re joining Germany with Austria.

We’re driving our wagons out west.Get out. Our home now. We want the Sudetenland.
We’ve got a chunk of Mexico. We’re joining Germany with Austria.

………………………………………………………………………………………….We’re taking Poland.
We’re driving our wagons out west.Get out. Our home now. We’ve got the Sudetenland.
We’ve got a chunk of Mexico. We’re joining Germany with Austria.

…………………………………………………………………………………………..We’re taking Poland.
We’re driving our wagons out west.Get out. Our home now. We’ve got the Sudetenland.
We’ve got a chunk of Mexico. We’re joining Germany with Austria. We want Ukraine.

…………………………………………………We’re taking Poland. We’re wiping out the USSR.
We’re driving our wagons out west.Get out. Our home now. We’ve got the Sudetenland.
We’ve got a chunk of Mexico. We’re joining Germany with Austria. We want Ukraine.

…………………………………………………We’re taking Poland. We’re wiping out the USSR.
We’re driving our wagons out west.Get out. Our home now. We’ve got the Sudetenland.
We’ve got a chunk of Mexico. We’re joining Germany with Austria. We want Ukraine.
………………………………………………………………………..We’re taking some of Palestine.

………………………………………………….We’re taking Poland. We’re nearing Russia.
We’re driving our wagons out west.Get out. Our home now. We’ve got the Sudetenland.
We’ve got a chunk of Mexico. We’re joining Germany with Austria. We want Ukraine.
………………………………………………………………………..We’re taking more of Palestine.
………………………………..Central and South America are our backyard.

…………………………………………………..We’re taking Poland. We’re nearing Russia.
We’re driving our wagons out west.Get out. Our home now. We’ve got the Sudetenland.
We’ve got a chunk of Mexico. We’re joining Germany with Austria. We want Ukraine.
………………………………………………………………………..We’re taking more of Palestine.
………………………………..Central and South America are our backyard. China’s a problem.

……………………………………………………We’re taking Poland. We’re nearing Russia.
We’re driving our wagons out west.Get out. Our home now. We’ve got the Sudetenland.
We’ve got a chunk of Mexico. We’re joining Germany with Austria. We want Ukraine.
…………………………………………Gaddafi’s a problem. We’re taking more of Palestine.
………………………………..Central and South America are our backyard. China’s a problem.

……………………………………………………..We’re taking Poland. We’re nearing Russia.
We’re driving our wagons out west.Get out. Our home now. We’ve got the Sudetenland.
We’ve got a chunk of Mexico. We’re joining Germany with Austria. We want Ukraine.
…………………Libya is liberated. Assad is a problem. We’re taking more of Palestine.
………………………………..Central and South America are our backyard. China’s a problem.

………………………………………………………We’re taking Poland. We’re weakening Russia.
We’re driving our wagons out west.Get out. Our home now. We’ve got the Sudetenland.
We’ve got a chunk of Mexico. We’re joining Germany with Austria. We want Ukraine.
……………..Libya is liberated. Assad is still a problem. We’re taking more of Palestine.
………………………………..Central and South America are our backyard. China’s a problem.

………………………………………………………We’re taking Poland. We’re weakening Russia.
We’re driving our wagons out west.Get out. Our home now. We’ve got the Sudetenland.
We’ve got a chunk of Mexico. We’re joining Germany with Austria. We want Ukraine.
………………………Libya is liberated. Syria is liberated. We’re taking more of Palestine.
………………………………..Central and South America are our backyard. China’s a problem.

………………….We demand Greenland. We’re taking Poland. We’re weakening Russia.
We’re driving our wagons out west. Get out. Our home now. We’ve got the Sudetenland.
We’ve got a chunk of Mexico. We’re joining Germany with Austria. We want Ukraine.
……………………….Libya is liberated. Syria is liberated. We’re taking more of Palestine.
.Central and South America are our backyard. We want Panama. China’s a problem.

Canada will be the 51st state.
…………………..We demand Greenland. We’re taking Poland. We’re weakening Russia.
We’re driving our wagons out west. Get out. Our home now. We’ve got the Sudetenland.
We’ve got a chunk of Mexico. We’re joining Germany with Austria. We want Ukraine.
……………………….Libya is liberated. Syria is liberated. We’re taking more of Palestine.
Central and South America are our backyard. We want Panama. China’s a problem.

Analysis of ‘Discipline,’ ‘Beat,’ and ‘Three of a Perfect Pair’

I: General Introduction

Discipline (1981), Beat (1982), and Three of a Perfect Pair (1984) are three King Crimson albums that I feel ought to be analyzed together, as they all share common themes, which I’ll go into later.

This era in King Crimson’s history has a number of firsts. Here, guitarist/leader Robert Fripp and drummer Bill Bruford are joined with guitarist/singer/lyricist Adrian Belew and bassist/Stick-player/back-up vocalist Tony Levin, both Americans, making this the first time that the mighty Crims were no longer 100% British.

On these three studio albums, we have, for the first time, the exact same lineup consecutively. Previously, the band had experienced everywhere from the loss of one member to a changing of all of them (except Fripp). The instability of the band had been at its worst between their first two albums and their fourth, Islands, during which time the abilities of the band members had gone from their strongest to their weakest (i.e., Boz Burrell was a good singer, but since Fripp had had to teach him bass, his playing wasn’t as precise as that of the others). In this fully stable 1980s lineup, though, King Crimson was made up of four of the top musicians in the entire world.

There were major changes in instrumentation, too. The Mellotron, an important part of their early sound, is absent from the 1980s on. Given how obsolete the keyboard had become in a world with polyphonic synthesizers that would increasingly be able to imitate conventional instruments, as well as how difficult the Mellotron is to maintain (recall Fripp’s quip that “tuning a Mellotron doesn’t”), it’s easy to see why it wouldn’t be used anymore; still, some fans of the old King Crimson found the instrument’s absence conspicuous. Instead, the new sound would highlight the then-new technology of guitar synthesizers, the Chapman Stick, and electronic drums. The Crims would be the band of the future…with a second guitarist who sang lead vocals instead of the bassist, and who consistently wrote the lyrics instead of there being a separate lyricist, like Peter Sinfield or Richard Palmer-James.

With all these changes in instrumentation (no more saxes, flute, or violin, either) also came radical changes in musical style. The new band fused new wave, minimalism, African polyrhythms, and even Balinese gamelan music with their usual progressive rock sound. Belew’s spoken-word contributions reinforced the new American sound, and his extroverted guitar wailing, with its imitation of animal noises, made seated Fripp seem even more introverted, him being content often to play his repeated guitar lines in the background.

Of course, this wasn’t the first time that King Crimson had made a significant change in their musical direction. The change from their pretty, dainty, jazz-tinged sound on their first four albums to their harder-rocking, improvisational sound during the John Wetton years deserves note. This change to an almost Talking Heads style in the 1980s, though (easy to hear, since Belew had just played with the Heads prior to the formation of this new Crimson, and he was occasionally criticized for seeming to be a David Byrne clone–the spoken word stuff), was far more radical.

So these were the musical aspects of the new band, as described in large brush strokes. Now, I’ll go into the recurring themes that I find in the lyrics of these three albums, for now described generally.

A hint as to what these themes are can be found in the album cover designs of the three albums. All three follow a similar format: the same font for the lettering, a symbol of some kind in the centre (or top-centre, as is the case with Beat), and a primary colour for the background–minimalist art for minimalist music. Red was the colour for Discipline, with a chain symbol; blue for Beat, with a pink eighth note; and yellow for Three of a Perfect Pair, with blue arches representing phallic and yonic symbols…and on the back cover, added to these two is a red arch “drawing together and reconciling the preceding opposite terms,” according to Fripp.

Note that we have not only three albums, but a third whose cover suggests that its…overarching [!]…theme is a sublation of the preceding two elements, the ‘perfect pair.’ The dominant themes of Discipline and Beat, implied by their titles, is an opposition between the Apollonian and the Dionysian. It should be easy to see the ideal of Apollo in the act of discipline; since Beat is greatly inspired by the Beat Generation writers (e.g. “Neal [Cassady] and Jack [Kerouac] and Me”), who were known for such things as wild drunken parties, free love, and the use of illicit drugs, it should be easy to associate Beat with Dionysus.

Thus, in the three albums, we can see and hear the Hegelian dialectic of thesis (Discipline), negation (Beat), and sublation (Three of a Perfect Pair). I will now go into how this is true, detail by detail.

II: Discipline

Here is a link to the lyrics for the album.

Elephant Talk

Levin begins the song with an accelerating tapping of two tritones–C/F-sharp and D/G-sharp–on the Stick, and these tritones will be featured in the funky main riff of the song. When the rest of the band comes in, Fripp will be mostly playing quick A minor arpeggios, and during the moments when Belew is making elephant noises on his guitar, Fripp is playing arpeggios in F-sharp.

As far as the lyrics are concerned, we find a basic exposition of the theme of the dialectic, with words like “arguments, agreements,” that suggest agreements with the thesis and arguments between the thesis and its negation. The “contradiction, criticism,” and “bicker, bicker, bicker” also indicate the conflict between the thesis and negation.

The basic idea behind any dialectic in philosophy is that it is a “dialogue, duologue” between two disagreeing people who, in their “debates, discussions” are searching to find the truth through reasoned discussion. “Talk, talk, it’s only talk.”

Now, there is a discipline in improving one’s philosophical thought through the use of the Hegelian dialectic. One mustn’t have a biased attachment to one’s thesis: it must be challenged with the negation’s “commentary, controversy” as well as its “diatribe, dissension” and “explanations.”

When one keeps the best parts of the thesis, while acknowledging the objections and qualifying of the negation, a sublation is achieved, a refining of one’s ideas, an improvement on them. One doesn’t stop there, though, for the sublation becomes a new thesis to be negated and sublated again. This three-part process must be repeated over and over again, in a potentially endless cycle, for such is the discipline of philosophy, to refine one’s ability to reason continuously.

Needless to say, the discipline required to sustain this ideal of constantly challenging and criticizing one’s worldview is irritating, frustrating, and tiresome. It is as relentless as Fripp’s ongoing, fast guitar lines that never seem to take a rest. Small wonder the symbol for the Discipline album cover is a chain.

Note that the original name that Fripp wanted for this 80s quartet was Discipline, a reaction against his annoyance with The League of Gentlemen, a new wave group he had in 1980. He was sick of “playing with people who are drunk,” and he wanted musicians of top calibre who would have the discipline to play music and focus on the music. Hence, he went from The League of Gentlemen (bassist Sara Lee, organist Barry Andrews, and drummer Kevin Wilkinson) to Discipline (Belew, Levin, and Bruford), who would later be called King Crimson, since ‘Discipline’ doesn’t sound like a fitting name for a rock band, to put it mildly.

Indeed, one must consider the tension felt in trying to maintain the Apollonian ideal of the discipline of the dialectic. Belew’s repeated “it’s only talk” sounds like his exasperation with dealing with such discipline–‘elephant talk’ sounds like a wish to return to an animal’s easy, instinctive way of expressing itself. Such frustrations with philosophically-minded thinking lead us to the next song…

Frame by Frame

These words of Belew’s in the song lyric seem to sum up that tension in measuring up to the Apollonian ideal: “…death by drowning in your own…analysis.” Just as with Belew’s exasperation with “it’s all talk” in the previous song, I suspect that it was Fripp’s endlessly analytical mind that Belew was drowning in. Bruford has made similar comments about how “terrifying” it is to be a member of King Crimson.

On this album, dialectical contradictions are not limited to those of ideas. They also exist in physical, material forms. I don’t generally mean that this ‘dialectical materialism‘ is a Marxist sort. I usually mean that we have conflict and contradiction in the musical structure, in such forms as polymetre.

The first example of this polymetre is in an undulating line of quick sixteenth notes in 6/8 time played by Fripp, while the rest of the band is playing in 4/4. Later, in the 7/8 sections that include Belew and Levin singing, there’s a point where Fripp omits the last of the seven notes in the cycle, beginning on the first note of the repeated cycle when Belew plays its last note before coming back to the beginning himself. A detailed demonstration of how the two guitar lines diverge and conflict with each other can be found here.

Eventually the melodic lines reconverge, symbolically suggesting a sublation of Belew’s ‘thesis,’ if you will, with Fripp’s ‘negation.’ Of course the guitar lines will diverge and reconverge again, a continuation of the never-ending cycle of the dialectic in sonic form.

To go back to the lyric, we analyze something by looking at it in terms of its component parts, slowly–piece by piece, “frame by frame,” like those of a video, “step by step.” In the process of analyzing a thesis, one may “doubt” its validity, this “doubt” giving rise to the negation of the thesis.

Matte Kudasai

The song’s title means “wait, please” in Japanese (待ってください). One envisions, on hearing Belew’s singing, an American woman waiting for the return of her Japanese lover, who calls out to her, “matte kudasai.” She is sad and pining for him, losing patience as she waits, “by the windowpane,” sleeping “in a chair.”

One of the difficult aspects of attaining an Apollonian sense of discipline is having to deal with postponed gratification. Fripp’s bandmates in The League of Gentlemen wanted to drink beer and play music, as I once read of Fripp’s complaining of them, and thus his ending of that band and recruiting Belew, Levin, and Bruford. Fripp wanted a disciplined band, which required an ability to postpone gratification (i.e., beer comes later). One must wait, please.

The American woman thus personifies the act of attaining discipline, and all the sadness that comes from having to postpone gratification, which in turn is personified by her Japanese lover, who is so far away from her, on the other side of the Pacific Ocean. For a third time, we sense the difficulty of improving philosophy through the discipline of the Hegelian dialectic.

Musically, the song is essentially a love ballad, with Fripp’s background chord progression reminding us of the one he arranged for “North Star,” a ballad sung by Daryl Hall on Exposure, Fripp’s first solo album. The seagull sounds that Belew makes, supplementing the slide guitar melodies he plays in imitation of his vocal line, suggest the shore of the Pacific Ocean that divides the American woman from her lover in Japan.

I’ve always been partial to the original version of “Matte Kudasai,” which includes guitar leads played by Fripp that have that mellow tone and long sustain, part of his signature sound. These leads are so beautiful that I honestly can’t understand why, since 1989, they’ve been removed from the “definitive” version of the track. The original version has thus been relegated to the status of an “alternative” version.

Indiscipline

The thing about dialectics is that one can’t understand one idea without contemplating its opposite (i.e., a thesis vs. its negation). Hence, to know discipline, as part of the Apollonian, one must also confront indiscipline, as a manifestation of the Dionysian.

The first…striking…thing we notice about this song is Bruford’s wild batterie on the drums. Apart from its virtuosic brilliance, it demonstrates to the full how he enlarged his drum kit for these three albums. He included Simmons SDS-V electronic drum pads, rototoms, octobans, and excluded the hi-hat, at Fripp’s insistence. In these choices for percussion, Fripp was moving King Crimson’s style in the direction of World Music, giving Bruford’s drumming an African feel; and the conspicuous absence of a hi-hat and reduced use of cymbals (which typically would provide a regular punctuating of eighth or sixteenth notes) is conducive to Fripp’s vision of a “gamelan rock” sound, which his and Belew’s guitars would provide in the playing of quick, repeated notes that remind us of those played on the metallophones of a gamelan.

Anyway, the opening of “Indiscipline” gives Bruford an opportunity to show off and improvise, to build up a storm as it were, gradually filling in more and more space with faster and faster playing, going from calm to increasing tension. His use of cross-rhythms against the simple motif (going in layers from a single-note F to its augmented chord) played in 4/4 by Fripp, Belew, and Levin, gives off a dialectic of chaos vs. order that is a musical demonstration of indiscipline, that understanding of discipline in terms of its opposite.

After this…banger…of an opening, the band switches to a 5/4 riff in A minor, while Bruford is hitting beats in eighth-note triplets. Belew plays a lead with variations based on A, C, C-sharp, C-natural.

The music quietens down to that opening motif in F, with Belew doing a spoken-word monologue. What he says was inspired by a letter his then-wife had written him about a painting she’d done. He never explicitly refers to the painting, only saying that he “liked it.”

What it is that he likes, be it a painting or whatever else, is the object of an obsessive desire, the kind of thing that not only distracts one from a sense of discipline, but that also keeps one chained to one’s passions. This is the Dionysian antithesis that will be focused on in my discussion of Beat.

This monomania that Belew is talking about is an example of what the Buddhists would call tanhā, the craving, thirst, or longing that keeps one away from nirvana and its peace of mind. Small wonder that the music gets so chaotic here. Discipline was King Crimson’s least dissonant album (at least as of the 1980s)–which is an unusual feat for the band–since the dominant theme of the album is a sense of order, the Apollonian, requiring much more consonance. It’s fitting, therefore, that the one song that is clearly the dialectical negation of that theme would be a more dissonant one, with Fripp’s screaming guitar phrases heard in the middle of the song.

Belew’s repeating himself when under stress makes me think of Freud‘s notion of the compulsion to repeat, a repetition of traumatic experiences. Note the irrationality of such behaviour, a form of self-harm. It is inherently Dionysian, a linking of tanha (“I like it!”) with dukkha, suffering. Adding to this tension is Fripp’s ongoing hammer-ons and pull-offs of C and A.

In live performances of the song, Belew tended to hold his guitar up, indicating that it was the guitar that he liked, “the more [he] look[ed] at it,” and did think was good. It’s a passion that “remains consistent.” He has also tended to tease audiences with the anticipation of returning from “I did” and “I wish you were here to see it” to the loud, chaotic 5/4 sections, deliberately delaying the transition, a tantalizing of the audience that reinforces the addiction to tanha.

Thela Hun Ginjeet

The title is an anagram of “Heat In the Jungle.” “Heat” refers to firearms or to the police.

The story behind this song is Belew’s recounting of a scary experience he had in the Notting Hill Gate area of London while walking around with a tape recorder. A street gang there accosted him, demanded he play his tape recording, accused him of being a cop, and implied a threat to his life.

Luckily for him, he was let go, but then ran into two policemen who accused him of hiding drugs in his tape recorder. His purpose of going around with the tape recorder, to get inspiration for lyrics for the song, was achieved: he returned to the recording studio and gave his bandmates a distraught account of what had happened out there: Fripp had Belew’s story recorded, and it was incorporated into the song.

The song begins with a guitar line by Fripp, played in 7/8 time, while the rest of the band is playing in 4/4. The resulting polymetre thus reinforces the sense of conflict between the gang’s lawlessness and the cops’ law enforcement…a kind of discipline.

Those rototoms and octobans that we hear Bruford hitting, with the African feel they generate, reinforce that “jungle” aura. Elsewhere, at one point in about the second half of the song, Belew manipulates his guitar feedback in a way that sounds almost like the siren of a police car. Hence, “heat in the jungle” could mean the threat of the street gang or of the cops. Meanwhile, the main riff of the song is anchored by Levin’s bass line of D-sharp hammering on to E, C pulling off to B, then an F-sharp–this last note being the tonic of the key the song is in.

Note that while I say that Apollonian discipline is the dominant theme of this album, this doesn’t mean that there isn’t anything significantly going on in the album to challenge that theme. Discipline is as much about the tension felt in trying to achieve the ideal of discipline as it is about that ideal, as I pointed out, in one form or another, in all of the songs on Side One.

The street gang that harassed Belew personifies that wish to break away from law and order–then the police appear to restore that law and order. This is what discipline is about: attempts to break free of it, as in the chaos of “Indiscipline” and the potential violence of the street gang, then discipline intervenes to punish, as the cops do in their suspicion that Belew had drugs on him.

The dialectic isn’t about one fixed state, its opposite as another fixed state, and their reconciliation as yet a third fixed state. It’s about the fluid movement among these three ephemeral states; hence the shifting away from, then back to, discipline in these songs. We’ll see the same fluidity of theme in Beat and Three of a Perfect Pair.

The Sheltering Sky

This instrumental is inspired by, mainly, the title of the famous novel by Paul Bowles, a writer loosely associated with the Beat Generation, whose writings will be focused on more when I look at Beat. Since this track is an instrumental, and therefore there are no lyrics to allude to anything in the novel, all we have is the title to make a direct reference to it.

Now, the novel is about a married couple, Port and his wife Kit, whose marriage is fraught with difficulties; they leave their American home and go traveling with a friend, Tunner, in North Africa, in the Sahara Desert. Matters get worse for the marriage, as Port enjoys the services of a prostitute one night, and Kit later has a fling with Tunner. Eventually, Port gets sick and dies of typhoid fever. She abandons the body and, Tunner being absent, wanders off in the desert, meets a local man who takes her in as a kind of concubine, dresses her as a boy so his jealous wives won’t know, and they have a brief affair. Held captive by him, though, she eventually escapes, and after wandering around a bit more, becomes disoriented and loses her mind.

As we can see, there’s nothing about discipline going on here. Furthermore, one must wonder: with a story of such existential dread, why is the novel called The Sheltering Sky? Two or three remarks are made here and there in the novel to answer this question, something to the effect of my paraphrasing here: the sheltering sky hides the night and the nothingness behind it; the sky shelters us beneath from the horror that lies above.

Since the sky, or heaven in general, has been used mythologically to represent divine ideals, the spirit (i.e., a sky-father god), as opposed to the crude materiality of life down here on Earth, the world of the flesh and of sin, then we can understand “the sheltering sky” to represent the Apollonian ideal attained through discipline as contrasting dialectically with the Dionysian world of the passions (as is dealt with in Beat). This latter, lower world has been demonstrated in the actions of Port and Kit, their infidelities to each other, and their illnesses, his physical one, and her mental one.

The point is that the Apollonian ideal as attained through discipline shelters us from the reality of our indiscipline, our wild, uncontrollable passions and the mayhem they cause. Recall what it says on the back cover of the album: “Discipline is never an end in itself, only a means to an end.” Religion and other forms of philosophical idealism have always been used to shield us from the painful reality of our material world. The opium of the people is a comfortable illusion that the ruling class uses to sedate us and take away our agency and motivation to make real changes for the better in our world.

The instrumentation for this track reflects the contrast between high tech (Fripp’s and Belew’s use of the Roland GR-300 guitar synthesizer, Levin’s Stick) and traditional instruments (Bruford’s use of the slit drum, which has been played in the folk music of countries in Africa, Austroasia, Austronesia, Mesoamerica, etc.). Furthermore, Fripp’s beautiful leads at the beginning and end of the track, the specific tone he uses, make one think of one of those Arabic reed instruments, such as the mizmar. His leads are played in an exotic scale, adding to the cool, North African effect.

This fusion of modern and traditional musical sources can be heard as symbolic of the materialist dialectic of the wealthy First World when contrasted with the poor Third World. Port and Kit leave the First World of the US and enter the Third World of North Africa, imagining they’ll cure their First World problems (a troubled marriage), when they end up exposed to the dangers of the Third World (Port’s typhoid fever, Kit’s becoming a man’s mere patriarchal property). The sky won’t shelter you from dangers like these.

Discipline

The title track instrumental epitomizes Fripp’s idea of fusing rock with the Indonesian gamelan. It’s also the epitome of the album’s experimentation with polymetre. Fripp’s and Belew’s fast, repeating guitar lines are meant to make us think of those fast, interlocking melodic patterns tapped on the metallophones of a gamelan orchestra.

Fripp and Belew begin with repeating patterns in 5/8 time, though they subdivide differently. Fripp is playing a pattern of 3+2, while Belew is playing one of 2+3. This, of course, isn’t tricky enough for the mighty Crims, so Levin is playing a Stick line in 17/16, a beat Bruford is also doing on the…slit drum?…while he is also hitting a simple bass drum beat in 4/4, to anchor all the music together and provide a groove.

As I said above, these polymetric cross-rhythms symbolize the conflicting aspects of the dialectic, but in a material form (a material form also symbolized in the fusion of traditional music, here in the gamelan, with modern rock instruments, something we just observed in “The Sheltering Sky”). After we hear the opening patterns described in the preceding paragraph, the band shifts to a pattern reminding us of what Fripp was playing in that section of “Elephant Talk” when Belew was making the elephant noises. Associating the first track with this last one reinforces my idea that the dominant theme of the album, and by extension all three albums, is the dialectic, and in the specific case of this instrumental, the Apollonian ideal as attained through discipline.

Later in the track, we hear Fripp and Belew doing fast patterns in 5/16, with polymetric permutations of that, all most redolent of the polyrhythms of the gamelan. At one point, Bruford will hit a crash cymbal to start off each measure of a section in 5/4. This smashing of the cymbal makes one think of a disciplinarian parent spanking the bottom of a naughty child.

Discipline is a means to the end of the Apollonian ideal, the illusion of the sheltering sky, the true dominant theme of the album, but a theme that is often hissed or groaned at, or rebelled against, as in the lawless gang that threatened Belew, or the naughty child getting the spanking. For this reason, it’s fitting that this closing instrumental is a sequel song to “Indiscipline,” the last track on Side One.

III: Beat

Here is a link to the lyrics of the album.

Neal and Jack and Me

This song can be seen as a sequel to the title track instrumental of the previous album, since “Neal and Jack and Me” begins similarly to the way “Discipline” ends. The latter ends with Fripp and Belew playing a repeated three-bar pattern in 5/16 time, after another moment of polymetre; the former begins also with Fripp and Belew playing patterns in 5/8, with some polymetre, too.

Such musical similarities between both tracks, given that they’re from albums with opposing themes, symbolically suggests the dialectical unity of opposites. When Levin (on the Stick) and Bruford come in, with a drum beat in 4/4, Belew starts singing, “I’m wheels, I am moving wheels,” a line from a note Fripp allegedly gave him. The notion of the speaker in the song being a personified “coupe” from 1952 should be remembered, since “Dig Me,” from Side Two of Three of a Perfect Pair, is also about a personified car (a junked one), and thus can be seen as a sequel song to “Neal and Jack and Me.”

The next verse establishes the theme of this album, as manifested through the writings of Jack Kerouac: En route loosely translates On the Road; then we have French translations of The Subterraneans, Visions of Cody (“Cody” being a renaming of Neal Cassady), and Satori in Paris (oddly spelled “Sartori,” as is the case with the instrumental “Sartori in Tangier”). That we are given French translations of the titles of these Kerouac books reminds me of the writer’s fluency in French (though American, Kerouac was of French-Canadian ancestry), as can be seen and heard in this discussion on Canadian TV.

Just as discipline is a means to the end of the Apollonian ideal, the dominant (and scarcely attainable, as a goal) theme of the previous album, so is the agenda of the Beat Generation writers a means to the end of the Dionysian ideal, the dominant theme of Beat. Before, it was about the “talk, talk, talk” of the dialectic, “drowning in your own analysis,” and having to “wait, please” for one’s gratification; now, it’s about being immersed in emotion, rather than repressing it.

The next verses of “Neal and Jack and Me” are all Belew giving us imagery of all the places he might visit and see while going on an imagined car trip through the US with Kerouac and Cassady, or through the streets of Paris. On the Stick, Levin is repeatedly tapping a minor third in the upper register, suggesting the obnoxious beeping of a car horn. Perhaps the impatient people in the car are Neal, Jack, and Adrian. They can’t wait, please.

Of course, all this traveling around the US or France with Neal and Jack is also a metaphor for touring the US and Europe with Robert, Tony, and Bill. Much of the music of this album would have been written during the Discipline tour, and therefore Belew would have been expressing how much he missed home and his wife. The previous album was all about (trying to show) restraint and (attempts at) self-control; Beat is about a release of the full range of emotions, love and yearning in particular…and these emotions lead us to the next song.

Heartbeat

Belew here is demonstrating the pop side of his musical personality. In recording this song, King Crimson did something extraordinary, by their standards: they actually crafted a simple pop love song, playable on the radio. “Heartbeat” demonstrates how thoroughly the musical revolution of punk rock, New Wave, and the resulting 1980s neutered progressive rock. Even King Crimson had to compromise to the dictates of the for-profit music industry. There’s even a video for the song.

The song’s inclusion on the album, though, apart from how pleasant it sounds, is justified in that Heart Beat is also the name of a book written by Carolyn Cassady, Neal’s wife, therefore linking her with the Beat Generation. As I said above, Beat is about emotion (in this case, love), Dionysus, making it the antithesis of the Apollo of Discipline.

I prefer the studio version of “Heartbeat,” when Bruford hits an accent on the second beat during the “I remember the feeing” verses. As for what’s preferable about the live versions, that would be the inventive melodic variations Belew does with his chord progression just before we hear him sing, “I need to feel your heartbeat.” Elsewhere, during Belew’s playing of those chords, there’s Levin’s distinctive playing of four Cs on the bass, as well as Fripp’s lyrical guitar leads.

Sartori in Tangier

Without any alternative explanation for the r, I must assume that the band misspelled satori and didn’t realize their mistake until the album cover was mass produced, and so correcting it would have been too much of a hassle. The title is derived from Kerouac’s Satori in Paris, as quoted in the French in the lyric for “Neal and Jack and Me”…also with that r.

In Japanese Zen Buddhism, satori means “awakening,” “understanding,” and “enlightenment.” Tangier–the International Zone, or Interzone, as William S. Burroughs calls it in Naked Lunch–was, however, a place where a number of the Beat Generation writers went to be open about their bohemian lifestyles, quite the opposite of the spiritual, austere ways of the Buddhists.

Burroughs was attracted to the Zone for its tolerance for drugs and homosexuality, and he went there with the intention to “steep [him]self in vice.” Apart from his having become severely addicted to Eukodol, he also had a sexual relationship with a teenage boy named Kiki. The Zone also tolerated different religions.

I bring all of this up to point out the deeper, dialectical meaning of the expression satori in Tangier. On the one hand, there’s the Dionysian decadence in the Beat Generation writers’ indulgence in drinking, drugs, and free love, including homosexuality. On the other, the Beats were also interested in alternative forms of spirituality, including Buddhism, which Kerouac explored in The Dharma Bums, despite his heavy wine-drinking, too.

A fusion of sin and spirituality is a major theme in Allen Ginsberg’s poem “Howl,” as I discussed in my analysis of that poem. “Sartori in Tangier” can be understood to be a sequel instrumental to “The Sheltering Sky,” not just because of Fripp’s similarly exotic leads on his guitar synthesizer, with that mizmar effect I discussed above.

Recall that Bowles is loosely associated with the Beat Generation; in fact, Bowles appears in Naked Lunch under the name Andrew Leif, and in the film adaptation, Ian Holm plays a character (Tom Frost) based on Bowles, during the Interzone section of the movie. Furthermore, Kerouac, Ginsberg, and of course Burroughs are represented by characters played by, respectively, Nicholas Campbell, Michael Zelniker, and Peter Weller in the movie (even Kiki was represented, with the same name, by Joseph Scorsiani). This fictionalized representation of Beat Generation writers was also adopted by Kerouac in his novels (recall “Cody” for Cassady).

So while “Sartori in Tangier” represents that dialectical fusion of Apollonian self-control leading to Buddhist enlightenment, on the one hand, with Dionysian indulgence in vice and pleasure, on the other, so does “The Sheltering Sky” represent such a fusion, with the sky as a supposedly heavenly shelter against evil, such as the dangers Port and Kit are exposed to, and their sins of infidelity. Hence, “Sartori” is a sequel to “Sky.”

Just as I said about Discipline with respect to the dialectic, it isn’t about that album being 100% thesis, this second album being 100% negation, and third being 100% sublation. The dialectic describes a fluid interplay of these three elements, not each given in a state of perfect fixity. So just as Discipline has its “Indiscipline” and lawless gang in “Thela Hun Ginjeet,” so does otherwise Dionysian Beat have its satori, or attempt to achieve spiritual enlightenment through the discipline of Apollo.

The instrumental opens with Levin playing a solo on the Stick. It’s played in free time, with a volume pedal, in D. Then he starts playing a distinctive, tight rhythm with low D notes and high ones in G and A, and variations thereof. Bruford comes in on the drums, and in the studio version, you can hear Fripp playing a simple tune on an organ. He soon comes in with those exotic, mizmar-like leads on the guitar synthesizer that I discussed above. In live versions of the instrumental, such as this one, Belew is a second drummer.

Waiting Man

This song can be seen as a sequel to “Matte Kudasai,” which you’ll recall means “wait, please” in Japanese. This song also seems to reflect how Belew, on tour, was missing his wife and home life, him aching to get back there.

Live versions of the song had Belew and Bruford doing a duet on tuned electronic drums, which the Beat tribute to the 1980s King Crimson also did, but with Belew and Tool drummer Danny Carey replacing Bruford. Levin joins their melodies by tapping notes of B, two in F-sharp, three in G, and one again in F-sharp. This is all played in 3/4 time, and in D major. Fripp is playing repeated notes in D octaves. It has a kind of Latin American feel rhythmically.

Belew sings about coming home, about the gratification of his waiting being finally over. This is in contrast to the postponed gratification of “Matte Kudasai.” In this way, we can see how “Waiting Man” is the dialectical antithesis of “Matte Kudasai,” in which the seemingly endless postponement of gratification causes great sadness. Here, the “tears of a waiting man” are tears of joy, with the “smile of a waiting man.”

As I said above, Discipline is about the restraining of emotion, whereas Beat is about the free expression of emotion, the dialectical antithesis. In the song, has Beleew really achieved the gratification being “home soon, soon, soon,” or is it just wish-fulfillment, a reverie he’s having about being home with his wife while actually being still on tour with Fripp, Levin, and Bruford? It doesn’t ultimately matter, because this song, like most of the music and lyrics of Beat, is about the free expression of desire, as opposed to Discipline‘s Apollonian self-control and restraint.

The waiting is still there, in any case, with all the pain that goes along with that waiting, so in the middle of the song, there’s a key change to G-sharp, a tritone away from D (the diabolus in musica), with some fast arpeggio picking by Fripp on the high frets of the guitar. Then there’s a shift to A, with some dissonant guitar howling by Belew, to express the pain from his waiting.

The fact that the key of A is the dominant for D means that, apart from Belew’s dissonant guitar howling, the musical tension (dramatizing the waiting man’s growing impatience to get back home) is at its greatest intensity, even if a leading tone–C-sharp–isn’t immediately apparent in the music at this moment. So when we come back to the tonic key of D major, we feel great relief.

And indeed, when we’re back there, back at home in D major, there’s the greatest happiness in Belew’s lead vocal and Levin’s back-up vocal, both of them moving in thirds: “I return, face is smiling…feel no fret…”

Neurotica

The song’s title is derived from that of a Beat-era magazine. Apart from this reference, the title has other overtones of meaning. Neurotic has been used by psychoanalysts to describe how an analysand has emotional problems caused by unconscious psychic conflicts. Such a notion is useful in developing the album’s themes of a whirlwind of emotion, its libido, its intensity, its wildness, and the battle to keep it under control. The title is also a pun on erotica; I’ll get to the implications of that later.

The studio version of “Neurotica” begins with a simple organ part played by Fripp, one taken from “Häaden Two,” from Side Two of Exposure. Then the band comes in with an explosion of activity: Belew makes a siren-like sound on his guitar, Fripp plays chords in 5/8, Bruford is pounding away chaotically, and Levin plays dark notes in the lower register of the Stick.

We get an atmosphere of a busy city downtown–car horns beeping and everything hectic. Belew’s spoken-word verses describe a surreal world of wild animals inhabiting the city: cheetahs, a “hippo…crossing the street,” “herds of young impala,” a gibbon, a Japanese macaque, and a “hammerhead hand in hand with the mandrill.”

In the second verse, a reference is made to the third track on Side Two, “The Howler” (see below), which is in turn a reference to Ginsberg’s poem, “Howl” (see above for a link to my analysis of the poem). It is fitting thus to associate “Howl,” however indirectly, with all of these references to wild animals–which continues in this verse: “the tropical warbler,” the ibis, the snapper, “the fruit bat and purple queen fish”–since the Dionysian wildness of “Howl” can easily be symbolized by all these wild animals.

Further cementing the association of this zoo-city with Beat Generation writers like Ginsberg is, during these spoken-word verses, Levin and Bruford playing in a jazz style, with a walking bass line on the Stick and a swing rhythm on the drums. The Beat writers often wrote of their partying to jazz.

In the middle of the song, the musical chaos representing this surreal zoo of a city is replaced with a calmer section of that 80s Crimson staple of repeated guitar lines in 7/8 time. In this middle section, Belew sings a three-line verse twice, the second time with a harmony vocal by Levin. The speaker’s arriving in Neurotica reminds me of Burroughs’s entering Interzone (as William Lee) in Naked Lunch, or of Port and Kit coming to North Africa in Bowles’s novel. The “neon heat disease” reminds me of the typhoid fever Port dies of, and it also seems to represent the fiery passions of the Dionysian lifestyle that Beat is all about.

Belew’s “swear[ing] at the swarming herds” seems to refer to all the profanity you’ll find in the books of the Beat Generation, much of which raised the eyebrows of readers back in the 1950s in a way that it wouldn’t today, given such things as the obscenity trials that Ginsberg was put through for “Howl,” and Burroughs for Naked Lunch. The “swarming herds” are of course the animals of Neurotica, which represent not just the North African locals in general, from the point of view of First World tourists like Bowles and Burroughs, but also specifically the people those tourists would have used for their sexual release.

“I have no fin, no wing, no stinger,…” etc. sounds like one of those tourists being symbolically emasculated by a venereal disease caught from one of the local catamites, people like Burroughs’s Kiki. And with neither a claw nor camouflage, the tourist has no protection from the dangers of the North African desert, as did hapless Port and Kit.

With a return to the noisy, chaotic cityscape of the beginning of the song, Belew’s spoken-word third verse lists off a number of other wild animals. His reference to “random animal parts now playing nightly right here in Neurotica” once again suggests the…parts…of local prostitutes enjoyed by the tourists in North Africa (note in particular the “suckers“). The song ends with Fripp playing leads on his guitar synthesizer like those heard on “The Sheltering Sky,” reinforcing the feeling that we’re in an area where Bowles’s Port and Kit once were, and where Burroughs met Kiki.

Two Hands

With this song, we move back to the territory of “Heartbeat,” except now the ballad isn’t merely about aching to be with one’s beloved. There’s an element of jealousy here. As I’ve said above, Beat is about the full expression of emotions; instead of the lust of “Neurotica” and its dangers, now we must beware of the green-ey’d monster.

The lyric describes a surreal scene of a painting with human consciousness hanging on a bedroom wall watching two lovers who are at it in bed. The face in the painting would “pose and shudder,” but it cannot do anything to stop the man from having the painting’s woman…or at least I assume the sexes here are as such, with Belew’s voice singing about the painting’s pain.

Included in the beautifully plaintive music is Bruford’s playing of the slit drum, again reminding us of “The Sheltering Sky.” Are the man and woman who are making love Tunner and Kit, or is it her with the local who’s using her as his concubine? Is it Port with the prostitute, and Kit is watching?

The lyric to this song was written by Belew’s then-wife, Margaret, so she of course would have had her own personal meaning for it: is she the face In the painting, fearing that her husband is enjoying the charms of a groupie while on tour? Such an interpretation would justify the comparison with Port and the prostitute in Bowles’s novel. In any case, the jealousy expressed fits in with the themes of the album.

After Fripp plays a beautiful solo on his guitar synthesizer, Belew comes back in singing about the wind blowing the hair of the watcher in the painting in the direction of the two lovers, but “there are no window in the painting…no open windows…” The jealous watcher is being tormented in two ways: he or she is being pushed, as it were, by the wind…if only by the hair…closer to the lovers; an open window would be the only way for the wind to come in and push him or her closer, yet the lack of windows implies nowhere to escape. The watcher must stay and watch, and move only closer, with bent hair implying a mind bent by the pain of having to watch.

After a refrain of the first verse, the song ends as it began: with guitars playing in C and in 6/8, as opposed to the 4/4 time of the rest of the song.

The Howler

This song makes allusions to Ginsberg’s poem, “Howl.”

The studio version begins with a fade-in of guitars in G minor and in 7/8, with Bruford doing some kind of African-style drumming. Next comes the main riff, which is played on Levin’s Stick in D minor and in 5/4, and is backed up on Fripp’s guitar synthesizer.

When Belew sings of “the angel of the world’s desire,” I’m reminded of what I wrote in my analysis of “Howl,” in which I discussed, similar to what I’ve been saying here about the dialectical relationship between the Apollonian and the Dionysian, a unified relationship between heaven and hell, sin and sainthood, nirvana and samsara, and if you will, angels and worldly desires.

The speaker is “placed on trial,” just as Ginsberg was for “Howl,” and Burroughs was for Naked Lunch, in both cases because they were accused of obscenity. Belew’s singing makes references to cigarettes–and in the second verse, to matches–as sources of fire. The cigarette could be a marijuana or hashish joint, and thus in turn be an indirect reference to the drug use of the Beat Generation writers; that “howling fire” or “howling ire” could also symbolize the Dionysian frenzy of the Beats.

We come back to the 7/8 passage in G minor, then the D minor music with the 5/4 Stick riff returns, and then the second verse. Paralleling the angel of the first verse, Belew now sings of “the sacred face of rendezvous.” I suspect that the rendezvous is of either fellow drinkers/drug users or illicit lovers, gay or straight, as are described in Ginsberg’s poem; if so, then this opening line further parallels the first verse’s opening line’s “angel of the world’s desire.” These lines reinforce the theme of a fusion of heaven and hell, of sinner and saint.

This meeting of Bohemians happens “in subway sour.” Ginsberg’s poem makes a number of references to being on subways: for example, in the first part, where it says that he and his Dionysian friends “chained themselves to subways for the endless ride from Battery to holy Bronx on benzedrine”. The subway ride is a drug trip, a sweet yet sour one.

Their “grand delusions prey like intellect on lunatic minds”–yet another fusion of Apollonian rationality with Dionysian craziness. This line also reminds us of the famous opening of Ginsberg’s poem: “I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked,…”

While Belew is singing (soon with a harmony vocal by Levin a third away) of not wanting to burn, that is, not wanting to endure the suffering (dukkha) of burning that inevitably follows from the fire of Dionysian desire (tanha)–recall my discussion of these Buddhist concepts in the “Indiscipline” section above–we’re hearing parallel E and F minor 7th chords on the guitar. The music here is playing in alternating bars of 8/8 and 7/8, with the eighth beat of the first of these pairs being a syncopation, a stressed off-beat to confuse the listener momentarily as to which bar is of the eight eighth notes, and which the seven of them, of the pairs of bars. After all, these four guys are the mighty Crims, and they’re very tricky.

After this section, we go back to the D minor music with Levin’s 5/4 Stick riff, and Belew does more dissonant guitar howling, a musical representation of that “howling fire,” in turn representing the Dionysian self-destruction described in much of Ginsberg’s poem. The song ends with the original 7/8 music in G minor, fading out as it faded in at the beginning.

Requiem

As the title of this instrumental improvisation implies, the emotion given full expression here is sadness. There was good reason for this sadness, since during the recording of this track, tension was building between Belew and Fripp. When the group got together, Belew got mad at Fripp for a number of reasons: recording in the UK, there was his sadness from being far from his American home; he was vying with Fripp for attention in their guitar work for the track; and Belew was being pressured to come up with some lyrics and melodic material for it, too. So Belew, in his frustration, told Fripp to leave the studio.

Visibly upset, Fripp left and went to his home in Wimborne Minster. He was’t heard from in several days, worrying everyone and leaving Belew and producer Rhett Davies to mix the rest of the tracks without Fripp. The group didn’t get back together until the Beat tour began, Belew having apologized to Fripp.

“Requiem” is built on Frippertronics, a tape-looping technique Fripp derived from his collaborations with Brian Eno back in 1972-73, when they recorded and released their first album together, (No Pussyfooting). Frippertronics is an analogue delay system using two side-by-side reel-to-reel tape recorders; the tape travels from the supply reel of the first machine to the take-up reel of the second, thus what’s recorded on the first is played back on the second. The second machine’s audio is then routed back to the first, causing the delayed signal to repeat while new audio is mixed in with it.

Using Frippertronics, Fripp would layer recordings of guitar lines one on top of the other in real time, lines of sustained, harmonized guitar notes that would end up sounding out sustained chords. This is what we hear at the beginning of “Requiem.” On top of these tape loops of guitar leads, Fripp solos in that sustained tone that is one of his guitar staples.

By the middle of the instrumental, not only have Levin and Bruford entered, the latter bashing about on his drum kit chaotically in free time, but Belew also comes in with more of his dissonant guitar howling (I’m reminded of Cecil Taylor Unit improvisations). One might connect this guitar howling here with that of “The Howler” and “Waiting Man.” Belew’s pain and sadness–from being far from his American home, his “sad America,” and his wish to be there soon and cry on Margaret’s shoulder–are being likened to not wishing to burn in Ginsberg’s Dionysian destruction. Similarly, Bruford’s chaotic drum-bashing here, as also in “Indiscipline” and “Neurotica,” links up Beat‘s theme of being the antithesis of the album’s Apollonian predecessor.

IV: Three of a Perfect Pair

Here is a link to the lyrics of the album.

Three of a Perfect Pair

Now, as I’ve said above, this third album’s main theme is the sublation of the contradictory relationship between the themes of the previous two albums…or really, just sublation in general. What must be understood about the Hegelian sublation, however, is that it doesn’t end the story, especially not with a peaceful, happy ending. On the contrary: the sublation only becomes a new thesis to be opposed and sublated again. This process of thesis, negation, and sublation goes on again and again in an endless cycle.

It’s as though a permanent state of conflict and contradiction is the real ideal, and not the sublation’s attempt at a reconciliation or resolution. Hence, the “pair” is already “perfect” as it is, while Element Number “Three” is, if anything, a kind of monkey wrench thrown in there to mess everything up, which would explain the paradoxical name of the album and title track. As with Discipline and Beat, this third album’s dominant theme (of sublation) is not to be understood as being in a state of permanent fixity.

Recall how I mentioned, in the introduction above, that the two blue arches on the front cover of this third album are phallic and yonic symbols, representing the male and female principles. The lyric to the title track is about a he and a she, opposite sexes personifying dialectical opposites, while they personifies the dialectical synthesis or sublation.

She, the thesis, is susceptible to any critique from the negation, who is impossible for the thesis not to have to face (and with his unattainably high standards, he’s also impossible to put up with). The burden they share, like Christ carrying His cross, is working out a reconciliation of their differences, the sublation.

The irony of this disharmony, as described in the lyric, is heard in the music, with Fripp’s and Belew’s guitars playing harmonious lines, thirds apart, in 6/8 time, those repeated guitar lines that remind us of that gamelan sound they were working on in Discipline. Similarly, Belew and Levin are singing these verses in parallel thirds, in…perfect…harmony. Thus, the juxtaposition of the disharmony of the man’s and woman’s relationship with the harmony in the music is a sublation.

While the first verse dealt with conflicts between two people, the second one is about internal conflict within the man and within the woman. With him, it’s “his contradicting views”; with her, it’s “her cyclothymic moods.” Cyclothymia is essentially a form of bipolar disorder, with alternating periods of elation and depression, cyclical ups and downs, but they aren’t as severe as those of regular bipolar disorder. The point is that these ups and downs are another manifestation of juxtaposed dialectical contradictions. The “study in despair” is in how the contradictions are never permanently, decisively reconciled. Sublations are brief, leading to new oppositions, hence there’s no hope for a permanent resolution. It’s a “study in despair” in that one dies “by drowning in your own analysis.”

It’s interesting how these two verses are set to music that uses the 12-bar blues progression, though without any of the blue notes. I’ve mentioned, in my analyses of the first two Crimson albums, how the 12-bar blues chord progression is sometimes presented, but in a perverse fashion, as it is here. However you hear it, dialectical contradiction gives you the blues.

With the move to “too many schizophrenic tendencies” is a move to 7/8, a fittingly asymmetrical time signature, as well as Belew and Levin singing separately, the former singing the bridge verse and the latter echoing the words “complicated” and “aggravated.” Instead of the voices singing together, cooperating in…perfect…harmony, their separateness suggests alienation. The “perfect mess” is a sublation of heaven and hell.

Three bars in 4/4 time, again with that gamelan guitar sound, lead into a repeat of the second verse. Then there’s a repeat of the bridge verse in 7/8. That gamelan guitar sound comes back, but in 6/8 this time; then there’s another 7/8 section, essentially in F-sharp and with a “schizophrenic” solo by Belew, an example of his innovative use of unconventional guitar sounds. Note that schizophrenic is derived from Greek words meaning a “splitting” of the “mind.” Such a split suggests dialectical contradictions, once again.

A singing of the bridge verse two times, and a repeat of the 4/4 time guitar line, ends the song.

Model Man

I’d say the speaker in this song is the man from the title track, just as the woman sung of in “Man With an Open Heart” is the same woman, too. He suffers from the difficulties of his relationship with her, a dramatization of the dialectic and its eternal cycle of conflicts (“calm before the storm”). The pain of his suffering is in the signs, the symptoms, the strain, and “tension in [his] head.”

While the main riff, in A major, is in 4/4, the chorus is in 7/8, the cutting off of a final eighth note suggesting an incompleteness, an imperfection. We hear sublations of perfection and imperfection in the words “”imperfect in a word, make no mistake”; similarly, though he’s “not a model man,” he’ll “give you everything [he has].”

I suspect he’s singing these words to the woman from the title track and in “Man With an Open Heart.” Is he the man with the open heart, who “comes right now,” or is he projecting his lofty standards of unrealistic perfection onto her? Is he “sleepless at night” because of his demands on her? Speaking of which,…

Sleepless

The song opens with a great slapping bass line by Levin, crisp, sharp, and precise. When Bruford, Belew, and Fripp join in, the two guitarists make some atmospheric sounds on their guitars as they play call-and-response chords.

Sleeplessness itself is a sublation, if you will, of sleeping and wakefulness. This is demonstrated in Belew’s lyric when he sings, “In the dream…” and “You wake up in your bed.”

He’s in “the sleepless sea” of his dream, which sounds like the formless chasm of the unconscious, realm of the Shadow and all such unpleasant, repressed thoughts, a land of nightmares. Now wonder he can’t sleep.

The imagery in this lyric, about the sea and all that’s associated with it–“the distant reef,” “emotional waves,” submarines, and the beach–is apt, given how those waves can be seen to symbolize the fluid movement of sublation back and forth between theses (crests) and negations (troughs). The back and forth arguing of the dialectic, like those call-and-response chords on Fripp’s and Belew’s guitars, is relentless and never-ending. No wonder he can’t sleep.

The speaker tries to reassure himself: “It’s alright.” He tries to relax: “And don’t fight it.” But needing to reassure himself that it’s alright is a negation of the reality that it’s very much not alright. His telling himself not to fight it is himself very much fighting it. He wouldn’t tell himself not to fight it if he didn’t need to. It’s not alright to feel a little fear, especially when you need to get some sleep. The dialectical opposite of what he’s saying to himself is the truth.

The “silhouettes” of “shivering ancient feelings” are old memories, the shadows and traces of pain from long ago. These painful memories cover his floors and walls, which are “foreign,” alien to him, yet being of his own home, symbolic of parts of his mind, they should be intimate to him. Again, being alienated from one’s very self is a sublation of intimate vs foreign.

The submarines that go about in the formless sea of his unconsciousness are the personal demons of his Shadow, his “foggy ceiling,” that part of his home, his mind, which he should be well acquainted with, but which is a mystery to him. If these repressed feelings aren’t brought to consciousness, they’ll keep him sleepless at night.

In the second singing of the chorus, we can hear Fripp and Belew in the background playing those trademark guitar lines in in which I suspect there’s more polymetre, symbolizing conflicting thoughts in the speaker’s mind. (Note that I am analyzing the original version of the song we got from the old vinyl recording of 1984.)

There’s one bar of 3/4 after this second chorus, then we hear Belew’s guitar solo. In the original version, you also hear the thumb-thumping on every beat in Levin’s slapping bass line, with no breaks in between thumps, as in the later version of the song.

“The figures on the beach in the searing night” sound like all those homunculi in speaker’s mind, be they the Jungian archetypes, or the Kleinian internal objects, or both. These are the conflicting voices in the battleground of the speaker’s mind: they are why he can’t sleep.

The song ends with more of the call-and-response chords of Fripp and Belew, and with Bruford’s African rattling of the rototoms, ’til the song fades out.

Man With an Open Heart

This song, I’d say, is a sequel to “Model Man,” for it mirrors and dialectically opposes the themes of the previous one. In “Model Man,” there’s all of the man’s sickness and anxiety over not being able to measure up to a stratospheric standard of perfection. In this song, instead of the woman being worried about such lofty ideals, she’s liberated from the need to live up to them. She can be her idiosyncratic self, and she doesn’t care if anyone disapproves of her.

As a bird, she can have both wings to fly freely. In this line, as well as in the two lines that follow, she shows that she’d exemplify the feminist idea of the liberated woman: not having to answer the phone, like the feminine stereotype of the receptionist or secretary; “in the comfort of another bed,” she wouldn’t feel restricted to sex with a husband.

Now, “a man with an open heart,” that is, a man who is open-minded enough to accept the ways of such a woman, demonstrates the opposite attitude of those who demand a Jesus ideal for “a model man,…a saviour or a saint.” An open-hearted man wouldn’t care if the woman doesn’t measure up to the lofty ideal of the Virgin Mary.

This man with an open heart is coming here right now. Who is he? Is he the speaker in the song? I have my doubts, since the speaker sings of him in the third person: “here comes right now.” He doesn’t say, “Here I come_ right now.” He doesn’t even say, ‘here he comes right now,’ as if he’s so jealous that he wishes he could eradicate the man with the open heart by omitting the pronoun that would refer to him. The moaned melody after this line suggests the speaker is groaning out his jealousy.

The harmonic progression of the verses includes a D major seventh chord, a D minor seventh chord, and an A major chord with an added 9th (or is it an added 6th? or is it a 6/9 chord?). These are heard three times, then with the thrice-sung “man with an open heart” line, we have chords of C-sharp minor and G-sharp minor; “here comes right now” is backed with a B minor chord, and the moaning is with an E minor chord.

In the next verse, Belew sings of how the liberated woman could behave in a number of seemingly erratic ways, being moody, dramatic, evasive, or “irregular and singing in her underwear,” all behaviours that a conservative society would disapprove of in a woman. A man with an open heart, though, would not be at all troubled with such behaviour in her.

Now, “wise and womanly introspectiveness” is of course a virtue in itself, but those who would reinforce sex roles don’t want that. “Her faults and files of foolishness” won’t measure up to the high standards of a ‘model woman,’ but a man with an open heart won’t mind. As we can see, this song is the dialectical opposite of the one in which he is worried about being pressured into perfection. “She is susceptible” to fault and criticism, and “he is impossible” to please.

Nuages (That Which Passes, Passes Like Clouds)

Nuage is ‘cloud’ in French. The passing movement of clouds in the sky, a shift from one position to another, seems symbolic of becoming, which for Hegel in his Science of Logic is the sublation of being vs nothing (Hegel, pages 82-83): “Pure being and pure nothing are…the same. What is the truth is neither being nor nothing, but that being–does not pass over but has passed over–into nothing, and nothing into being. But it is equally true that they are not undistinguished from each other, that, on the contrary, they are not the same, that they are absolutely distinct, and yet that they are unseparated and inseparable and that each immediately vanishes in its opposite. Their truth is, therefore, this movement of the immediate vanishing of the one in the other: becoming, a movement in which both are distinguished, but by a difference which has equally immediately resolved itself.”

The passing of being into nothing and nothing into being is here symbolized by the passing clouds. The clouds represent being, the cloudless air represents nothingness, and the passing of the clouds represents becoming…sublation.

Because clouds are in the sky, and this instrumental has a vaguely Middle Eastern feel, it can be deemed a sequel to “The Sheltering Sky” and “Sartori in Tangier.” Since the first of these three is thematically, as I explained above, about the relationship between, on the one hand, the Apollonian, celestial ideal as an illusory protection against, on the other, the horrors of our self-destructive, Dionysian reality here on Earth, and the second instrumental is paradoxically about spiritual enlightenment in a place where the Beat writers indulged in vice, then “Nuages” can also be seen as a sublation of the Apollonian and the Dionysian in North Africa.

The music begins with Bruford playing beats on his electronic drum kit, which is programmed to make unusual sounds that I can describe only as making me think of sticking one’s feet in puddles. Fripp comes in with the guitar synthesizer, which has been programmed to remove the plucking attack of his plectrum on the strings, as one would hear with a volume pedal. The effect is an ethereal one making pictures in one’s mind of clouds passing in the sky. He’ll use a similar effect with his Roland GR-300 on the album’s next track, “Industry.”

Next, Fripp overdubs guitar leads with that sustained tone he’s many times gotten from his black Les Paul Custom. Belew does a brief solo in the middle of the track, and we return to Fripp doing his leads until the piece ends as it began, with Bruford’s electronic drums.

And this is the end of Side One of the LP, or as it’s called on the LP, the Left Side–Side Two thus of course being the Right Side. Such a naming of the sides is apt given their dialectically opposing natures.

Indeed, Fripp himself summed up the nature of the musical content well. He said Three of a Perfect Pair “presents two distinct sides of the band’s personality, which has caused at least as much confusion for the group as it has the public and the industry. The left side is accessible, the right side excessive.”

As I said at the beginning of this analysis of Three of a Perfect Pair, the theme of sublation that we get on the left side becomes a new thesis to be negated, as is expected of the Hegelian dialectic. In this case, to paraphrase what Fripp mentioned in the above quote, the music of the left side is largely radio-friendly (I recall when the album came out, and the title track and “Sleepless” were being played on the radio); the music on the right side, however, is mostly instrumental and mostly of an experimental nature, with lots of King Crimson doing their trademark deliberate dissonance.

Indeed, the whole reason that King Crimson remained a cult band without ever enjoying substantial mainstream commercial success is because, as a music magazine article I once read about GTR, their music requires too much intelligence to appreciate. One of the Toronto DJs, who was playing tracks like “Sleepless” back in 1984, said in all bluntness that he didn’t like playing King Crimson’s music because he thought it was “too brainy.” As a fan of the mighty Crims, I find such descriptions of their music quite flattering.

Industry

This instrumental seems to be a musical description of the growth of industry, from its beginnings in the Industrial Revolution of late 18th century England to the fully industrialized world of today. Linked with the advances in technology and the use of machinery (as expressed in the music through Fripp’s and Belew’s guitar synthesizers, Bruford’s electronic drums, and Levin’s tapping of the bass C note on a keyboard synth, as well as Belew’s machine-like guitar rumblings and Bruford’s machine-like precision on the drums) is also the growth of capitalism.

These historic developments, so bad for the environment and for the working class, explain why the tone of the music is so dark. And since in the second part of Ginsberg’s “Howl” we see what is the cause of the madness of “the best minds of [his] generation”, namely, Moloch, who personifies alienating industrial capitalism (see my analysis of “Howl”), we can see “Industry” as a sequel to “The Howler.” Recall such moments in the second part of “Howl” as these to see my point: “Moloch whose mind is pure machinery! Moloch whose blood is running money!…Moloch whose factories dream and croak in the fog! Moloch whose smoke-stacks and antennae crown the cities!”

Now our discussion of the dialectic must go from Hegelian idealism to Marxist materialism. I’ve already mentioned how the sublation of any thesis and negation must become a new thesis to be negated and sublated again. This three-part process repeats itself over and over again in a potentially endless cycle. In the case of historical materialism, we see this process begin in the ancient world in the form of the master (thesis) vs the slave (negation). These are sublated into a new thesis and a new negation, respectively the feudal lord and serf. With such events as the French Revolution, the contradiction of feudal lords and serfs is sublated into our modern contradiction, the bourgeoisie (thesis) and the proletariat (negation), which Marxist thinkers see being sublated through socialist revolution.

So when we see the conflict between the he and she of the title track, we’re seeing a personified dramatization of the previous contradictions of history. Their being thrown together suggests a sublation that will become the basis for the new thesis, 19th century industrial capitalism (musically expressed in this instrumental, of course), which will be negated by the proletariat in the form of revolutionary resistance.

These contradictions are seen in the illusory idealizing of “the sheltering sky,” or Apollonian heaven, the opiate God protecting us from sin, as well as in the “model man…a saviour…a saint,” as opposed to the lowliness of life on Earth, the Dionysian, “her faults and files of foolishness.” In the past, there was the divine right of kings and the sexist assumption of men’s ‘superiority’ over women. These past contradictions have been sublated into modern capitalism and ‘girl-bosses,’ as well as diversity in management. The contradiction of bourgeois and proletarian remains, though. I’ll go more into the evils of contemporary neoliberalism later. Now let’s look at the music.

The instrumental begins with, as I said above, Levin playing a low C note on a keyboard synth, with Bruford backing him by softly tapping on his snare drum. It’s two eighth notes, a quarter note, and two quarter rests, so we begin with two bars of 4/4. Then it’s four eighth notes, and the rest is the same as in the first two bars, so now it’s a bar of 5/4. Then the 4/4 and 5/4 alternate throughout the rest of the track, though Levin will, on the 5/4 bars, sometimes make the second of the four eighth notes a G-sharp, or a minor sixth above the Cs.

Fripp comes in with the guitar synthesizer, playing those ethereal chords without the sound of plucking–as in “Nuages”–the tones fading in. Belew plays lyrical leads on top of Fripp’s chords, playing glissandi on what must be a fretless guitar. Though Levin’s synth Cs and Bruford’s snare sound mechanistic, so far the music is generally pleasant, symbolically suggesting the promising future of a raised standard of living that comes with industrialization.

Levin adds some slapping bass, with G and G-sharp, then these notes with C-sharp and C, or these latter two and another G-sharp, or variations thereon. Bruford also comes in bashing with crackling precision. The addition of these instruments suggests the growth of industry and the development of better technology.

Next, Fripp’s guitar synthesizer comes in with a new sound: low, dark tones (C, G, G-sharp, then these with G, G-flat, etc.) on which he’ll layer parallel ones–two, then three, then more. In live versions, Belew added an upper guitar lead to intensify the dramatic effect of this ominous development.

This parallel layering of a chromatic melodic line symbolically suggests the growth of industrial capitalism, and refinements in technology for that purpose. To gain an advantage, however temporary, over the competition, a company will invest in better technology, better machines, in order to cut labour costs and bring prices down, because value is determined by the socially necessary labour put into making a product. Soon enough, though, the competition will adopt the same new technology and machinery, thus reducing their costs and prices, and overall the rate of profit will tend to fall over time, a tendency that Marx predicted would eventually lead to the destruction of capitalism by its own contradictions.

The ugliness of these developments, that is, the oppression of the working class via wage slavery, the degradation of the environment, and the globalization of imperialism, is expressed in “Industry” through the angular guitar growling of Belew and Fripp. The former’s guitar makes us think of the grinding of machinery, and the latter’s trademark screaming phrases suggest the cries of suffering humanity.

Towards the end of the instrumental, the music quietens down, finally ending as it began, with the low Cs on the synth and Bruford’s snare drum.

Dig Me

The only song on The Right Side with vocals begins immediately after “Industry” ends, suggesting a continuity between the two tracks. Such a continuity is perfectly valid, since the problem of pollution as expressed in this track is of course a direct result of industrialization.

In a live performance of both “Industry” and “Dig Me,” back to back in Montreal in 1984, Belew addressed the audience by asking them, in between the performance of the two pieces, if they wanted “some more of the weird stuff.” The audience cheered for it enthusiastically, but of course most listeners would be alienated by such avant-garde music. Alienation, nonetheless, is the whole point, given the themes dealt with in this music.

The song begins with more of Belew’s metallic, machine-like guitar rumblings, and these, combined with his scratching, dissonant rhythm guitar chords, are a fitting musical complement to the lyric, which is a surreal monologue given by a junked, rusty car in a junkyard, but the car has human consciousness.

I see this song as a sequel to “Neal and Jack and Me,” in which, recall, the speaker is “moving wheels…a 1952 Studebaker/Starlight coupe.” We thus note here a sad decline from the wild and carefree days of going on the road with Cassady and Kerouac to languishing as a wretched car among other totaled automobiles and metallic garbage.

This decline can be seen as allegorical of how the West has gone from the post-WWII economic prosperity to, as of the writing and recording of “Dig Me,” the beginnings of Reaganite/Thatcherite neoliberalism, something that since those ominous beginnings has in turn continued its steady decline into the 21st century schizoid world we live in today. Indeed, the Right Side of Three of a Perfect Pair is, in my opinion at least, as prophetic a set of music as In the Court of the Crimson King is.

When Belew’s alliterative, spoken-word monologue complains of how “the acid rain floods [the car’s] floorboard,” etc., and the car lies “in decay, by the dirty angry bay,” we’re reminded of how industrial capitalism has resulted in environmental degradation.

Now, the opposition between the radio-friendly accessibility of the Left Side vs the experimentation of the Right Side isn’t any more absolute than is the Apollonian in Discipline or the Dionysian in Beat. Like the white dot in yin and the black dot in yang, there are brief moments of simpler music on the Right Side as well as briefly progressive moments on the Left Side (e.g., the 7/8 passages).

The chorus of “Dig Me” is an example of something more human and relatable for the listener among the otherwise “weird stuff” on the Right Side. As I’ve said a number of times already, the three phases of the dialectic aren’t in a state of permanent fixity: they’re just there to simplify our understanding of the actual fluidity of the dialectic.

The spoken-word verses emphasize the mechanical aspects of the ‘car-man.’ The chorus emphasizes the human aspects. Accordingly, Belew sings with a harmony vocal from Levin, and we hear a straight-forward guitar melody of G major added second, then B, C, and E, Levin backing it up on the bass, with Bruford playing a simple 4/4 beat. This simplicity contrasts with the chaos of the dissonant chords and free rhythm drum bashing of the distorted spoken word verses.

As Belew and Levin are singing about wanting “to ride away” and not wanting to “die in here,” we can empathize with the car-man, for today, we too “wanna be out of here,” out of this ecocidal, neoliberal dystopia, in which high technology is increasingly taking us over.

That the car-man has metallic skin reinforces his half-man, half-machine nature, symbolic of how so many of us today feel alienated from our species-essence as a result of living in the high-tech capitalist world, one that reduces human beings to mere commodities who must sell our labour in order to survive. The car-man’s skin is “no longer an elegant powder blue,” the colour of the Beat album cover, and thus a reminder of the “moving wheels” of the album’s first track.

His “body” is “sleeping in the jungle of…metal relics,” reinforcing the identifying of the human body and of nature with metal, machines, cars, and other forms of modern technology. Recall that Ginsberg was making similar complaints about how modern industrial capitalism is driving us all mad, in the Moloch passages of “Howl.” We can see in this verse of “Dig Me” how it develops the themes of the Right Side of Three of a Perfect Pair: modern industry has resulted in a decline in the quality of our lives. “What was deluxe becomes debris.”

No Warning

At first, I had difficulty figuring out where this instrumental improvisation would fit into the overall themes of this album, given the vagueness of the track’s title (no warning of what?). Then I discovered these outtakes, “Industrial Zone A” and “Industrial Zone B,” and on hearing their sonic similarity to “No Warning,” now I know how to interpret them.

“No Warning,” therefore, is a sequel instrumental to “Industry.” It’s not that no warning was ever given: lots of leftists back in the 1980s warned what the policies of politicians like Reagan and Thatcher would lead to; it’s that no warning was heeded by the mainstream population.

The music of this instrumental is even darker and more ominous than that of “Industry” because, if we see these two tracks as musical chronicles of modern history, then where “Industry” gave us the beginning and early growth of industrial capitalism, “No Warning” gives us the late-stage capitalism of the mid-1980s and since then. Things have gotten far, far worse, with not only the rise of neoliberal reactionaries, but also the increasing damage being done to the Earth.

The use of high-tech instrumentation, such as guitar synthesizers, the Stick, and electronic drums, can be heard as an ironic commentary on how technology isn’t always a good thing (e.g., nuclear weapons). Of course, we get more of Belew’s mechanical guitar sounds as part of this commentary; notice also the conspicuous absence of animal noises from his guitar, since in our day, animals are fewer and fewer; a further discussion of that issue is coming shortly. Bruford’s bashing of his drum kit in free rhythm, combined with the guitar dissonances, just adds to the feeling of dystopian unrest. The dark tones from Levin’s Stick, played as they seem to be through a volume pedal, top off the eerie atmosphere.

Larks’ Tongues in Aspic, Part III

This instrumental is yet again an example of “three of a perfect pair,” the pair in this case being parts one and two of “Larks’ Tongues in Aspic,” the first and last tracks of the album of the same name, released back in 1973, and the first Crimson album to have Bruford on drums, since he’d just left Yes after finishing Close to the Edge.

This third part opens with Fripp playing fast arpeggios that shift back and forth between tonality and atonality, a Frippian idiosyncrasy we’ve heard a number of times before, such as on a few tracks on Exposure, in collaborations with Daryl Hall around the same time, and most significantly, at one point in the middle of “Larks’ Tongues in Aspic, Part One,” a passage that in turn has a precedent in an instrumental recorded, but not yet released, by the Islands Crimson lineup.

After this comes a guitar-dominated riff in a cycle of two bars of 4/4, then one in 2/4, repeated several times. The crunchy guitar chords vaguely remind one of those played by Fripp at the beginning of “Larks’ Tongues in Aspic, Part Two.” The rest of the music of Part Three bears hardly any resemblance to that of the first two parts.

Next comes an energetic riff in 7/4, interrupted in the middle by variations of that riff in 4/4, 4/4, and 2/4. After a repeat of the 7/4 riff, we come to a harmonized duet of soft guitar arpeggios mostly in 5/8, but with the beats subdivided first as 3+2, then as 2+3, then there’s one bar of 4/8 before the 5/8 cycle begins again. The last part of the track is a simple jam in 4/4, with Fripp soloing dissonant music on guitar synthesizer.

Fripp’s soloing here (please don’t mistake this for a criticism: he’s my favourite guitarist!) makes me think of the cries of pain of an animal killed for food, the kind of thing that shows us that the vegetarians have the moral side of the dietary argument. Larks’ tongues, incidentally, were a delicacy enjoyed by the ancient Roman wealthy; this historical fact links this last track on the album to the overall theme of the Right Side. The wealthy have harmed the poor, the environment, and animals.

V: Conclusion

I wish I could have finished and published this analysis earlier on during the Beat tour, in which Belew and Levin have joined forces with Steve Vai and Danny Carey to play concerts of the music from these three albums. In spite of Vai’s and Carey’s obvious skills, they knew they had a formidable challenge in filling the shoes of Fripp and Bruford; and in spite of this challenge, they pulled it off admirably, as the many YouTube videos from the shows clearly demonstrate.

With the resurrected appreciation for these albums that this tour has engendered beginning in the fall and the winter of 2024, I hope this analysis of mine will strengthen that appreciation. It’s music from one of the greatest lineups of one of the greatest prog bands.

Analysis of ‘Shadow of a Doubt’

Shadow of a Doubt is a 1943 film directed by Alfred Hitchcock, his favourite of all of his films, and the one he enjoyed making the most. Written by Thornton Wilder, Sally Benson, and Alma Reville, Shadow of a Doubt was based on a story treatment by Gordon McDonell called “Uncle Charlie,” which in turn was based on the true crime story of Earle Nelson, a serial killer, rapist, and necrophile from the late 1920s known as “The Gorilla Man.”

Most of Nelson’s victims were middle-aged landladies, killed by strangulation, and many were raped after death. The writers of Hitchcock’s film changed the victims into wealthy, elderly widows, and Nelson’s charm–as a mild-mannered Christian drifter–was retained in Uncle Charlie. I find the connection between landladies and wealthy widows as victims to be interesting, as I’ll get into later.

The film stars Joseph Cotten (as Uncle Charlie) and Teresa Wright, with Macdonald Carey, Patricia Collinge, Henry Travers, Wallace Ford, and Hume Cronyn. McDonell was nominated for an Oscar for Best Story. The film received universally positive reviews upon release, and in 1991, it was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress, being deemed “culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant.”

Here are some quotes from Shadow of a Doubt.

A crucial theme in this film is the sharp contrast between a man’s charming outer persona and his dark, evil inside. Note what Hitchcock himself once said as an overarching theme: “Love and good order is no defense against evil.” Uncle Charlie has such a good reputation among his own family, the Newtons, whom he’ll visit in Santa Rosa, California (in McDonell’s treatment, the small town the villain will visit is Hanford in the San Joaquin Valley), that the last thing they’d ever suspect is that he’s a serial killer.

Uncle Charlie’s sister, Emma Newton (Collinge), and her husband, Joseph (Travers), named their eldest daughter, Charlotte “Charlie” Newton (Wright) after him because he’s idealized so much, an idealization that spreads out to the entire city of Santa Rosa, a location chosen for the film as a paragon of a peaceful, small, pre-WWII American city. Such a nice place for Uncle Charlie to hide out in reinforces this idea of a good, wholesome exterior hiding a shady secret.

On top of all of this is Young Charlie, a sweet, pretty young woman sharing the name of the villain. On two occasions in the film when she and her uncle chat, they speak of themselves as being twins, rather than uncle and niece.

Her wish to have him come over to Santa Rosa, to relieve the boredom and meaninglessness of their lives, coincides with him sending a telegram to her family, saying he wishes to pay them a visit. She imagines that her wish has been mental telepathy, sent to him to make him send the telegram; a Jungian would say this meaningful coincidence, a linking of her inner mental state with the outside world, is a case of synchronicity. In any case, this coincidence is yet another linking of the two Charlies, with her nice-girl Persona and his serial-killer Shadow.

Her adoration of her handsome, charming uncle borders on incestuous desire, a kind of transference of her Electra complex from her father to her uncle. Indeed, she beams at her Uncle Charlie, with a grin from ear to ear, thinking he’s “wonderful.”

So she’s transferring her idealization from the parental imago to her uncle. The idealized parental imago is one of two poles of the self, as Heinz Kohut conceived it, a self rooted in narcissism. Since the Oedipus complex is a narcissistic trauma, and she’s transferring hers to her uncle, then her love of him is really a narcissistic projection from herself to him. When she realizes his murderous nature, her heart is broken, and now she must split off and project what’s really her Shadow self onto him, hence, “Shadow of a doubt.”

So, on a symbolic level, both Charlies can be seen as two halves of one person, the good and bad sides of Two-Face‘s coin, if you will. Uncle Charlie’s being pursued by the two detectives at the beginning of the film causes us to sympathize with him for the moment, since we don’t yet know of his crimes, and so we believe, as his niece does, in how “wonderful” he is, until that shadow of a doubt comes with her growing suspicions of him.

A paralleling of the good outer Persona vs the dark, inner Shadow can also be seen in her father, Joseph, having ongoing discussions with a neighbour, Herbie Hawkins (Cronyn), of how one might commit the perfect murder. This little bit of black comedy between them is a light subplot for the dark main one, yet it also reminds us of how the dark sides in us, however seemingly slight, are on a continuum with those who commit actual crimes. The real difference is in how the hell of the real world has a way of pushing people over the edge to commit criminal acts…an issue I’ll deal with in more detail later.

Young Charlie’s suspicions of her uncle begin upon having received the gift of a valuable emerald ring from him…one that has the initials of another owner on it. He also gets upset to find a newspaper article about the pursuit of him as a suspect in the murder of the wealthy widows, and even Young Charlie’s naming of Lehár‘s Merry Widow Waltz must be interrupted by him at dinner. Indeed, the theme of this waltz is given numerous, often dark and eerie, variations by the composer of the film-score, Dimitri Tiomkin.

I’ll now give a political interpretation of the film as an allegory, one that some readers will no doubt find controversial, but please, hear me out. While Hitchcock was no friend to fascism, as can be seen in films like The Lady Vanishes and Notorious, and while he promoted progressive ideas in a subtle fashion in his stretching of the limits of movie censorship over the years, as well as in the gay subtext in Rope, he was also a reactionary in other ways, as I’ll go into soon in Shadow of a Doubt.

Indeed, Hitchcock can in some ways be compared to George Orwell, who on the one hand, as he said in Homage to Catalonia, went to Spain in the mid-1930s to fight fascism and was impressed with the revolutionary achievements, however short-lived, of the anarchists there, yet on the other hand, he was so bitterly opposed to the ‘totalitarian’ communists (whom he caricatured in his two famous fictional allegories) that he had a snitch list of ‘crypto-communists’ that he used to thwart the careers of those on the list. Hitchcock, as a bourgeois who was making quite a name for himself (and a lot of money, no doubt) in Hollywood as of the early-1940s, when this film was made, would have had his own class interests to protect.

At the beginning of 1943, when the film was released, the Tehran Conference–with the origins of the Cold War associated with it–was far away from happening, as was the Second Red Scare of 1947. The tide turning against the Nazis in the Battle of Stalingrad was still a month away from happening, too. There seems to have been little fear of communist revolution in January 1943.

The hardships that the working class had suffered during the Great Depression, however, caused them to rise up in an unprecedented way, forcing FDR’s hand in the legislation of the National Labor Relations Act and the New Deal. Many on the political right see little if any difference between the moderate and hard left, and between propagandistic nonsense, like the ‘Holodomor,’ and the truth of the killing of the Tsar’s family, there would already have been much bourgeois fear of leftists idealizing communism.

To get back to the film, and to tie all of these historical digressions to it, there is a crucial scene in which Uncle Charlie discusses what is actually his motive for strangling the rich widows. He refers, with a scowl, to how their husbands worked hard to make all that wealth and then died, leaving all their money to their “silly wives…these useless women”, whom he doubts are even human. In a later discussion with Young Charlie, her uncle describes the world as “a hell.” Given the neoliberal reality we’ve been in for the past forty years, I’d say it’s even more of a hell now.

In these hard-working husbands, I see an allegory of the working class; in their wives, I see the ruling class who take the fruits of their workers’ labour and live in luxury after the men have died from overwork and hazardous accidents. Killing the widows, therefore, allegorizes socialist revolution, but an allegory from the point of view of the frightened bourgeoisie, who want to propagandize against such revolution and call it cruel and violent, hence the representation of the capitalist class as vulnerable, helpless women, to inspire the audience’s sympathy for them.

Young Charlie, too, is concerned–towards the beginning of the film–with the struggles of her family (there is a similar sense of her family’s struggles in McDonell’s treatment), including how her mother works like a dog. Life seems meaningless to her, just a lot of going along with everything, eating and sleeping and nothing else. There’s talking, but little real communication. She seems to sense modern-day alienation. These grey days immediately turn sunny on the arrival of her uncle (who in my allegory represents communist ideals), but she, being liberal-minded like Hitchcock, would never espouse the violent overthrow of capitalism that her uncle’s murders represent.

If my anti-capitalist interpretation seems far-fetched to you, Dear Reader, consider how odd Uncle Charlie’s motive for killing the widows sounds, taken at face value. Misogyny, directed at women merely for being rich and not working, building in a flame of hate strong enough to want to strangle several of them and risk being charged with murder? The world is a hell just because of the widows’ indulgence? Earle Nelson, on whom Uncle Charlie was based, recall, was a sex offender, with a motive straightforward enough to see, but one that for obvious reasons couldn’t be presented on the screen at the time.

That the screenwriters changed the murder victims from being, of all people, landladies to wealthy widows adds to my argument. Landlords, male or female, are capitalists, owning private property–the apartments they make money off of renting them to tenants. The screenwriters changed the victims from one kind of capitalist to another, one whose wealth, unmistakably associated with the exploitation of the poor, is all the more obvious.

A few other things about Uncle Charlie can be associated with communism. He’s come out west from the east. Now, by the east in the film, it’s meant to be the east coast of the US, of course–New Jersey, to be exact. But one can associate “the east” with Russia. There was a growing fear of communist ideas coming to the west–to Western Europe and North America, allegorically represented in the film as California.

One reason I find it useful to link Uncle Charlie’s murders with anti-capitalism, even though he is no communist, is how his story can be paralleled with that of Luigi Mangione, the man accused of shooting and killing Brian Thompson, the CEO of UnitedHealthcare. Mangione has right-leaning political sympathies, but they weren’t enough to stop his rage against an American health insurance system that gets rich off of denying coverage for people who desperately need it, and often die without it. Mangione is regarded as a kind of working-class hero (despite him being from a well-off family), and Thompson’s murder is dismissed by the masses as a case of someone who got what was coming to him.

As for Shadow of a Doubt, though, the bourgeois moviemakers would have us booing at anyone who dares to kill the wealthy. Uncle Charlie’s charm and good looks are meant to be seen as superficial and nothing more.

When Uncle Charlie gives gifts to all the family members, including Young Charlie’s emerald ring, we could see such largesse as representative of a socialist redistribution of wealth. Since this film is actually an anti-communist allegory (as I see it), though, we are reminded, through such things as the initials of the previous owner on the ring, that this redistribution is actually to be understood as a theft from the rightful owners, the capitalist class.

When Uncle Charlie cuts out of Joseph’s newspaper an article about the widow murders, and later gets mad at Young Charlie for inquiring too much about the missing article, we can see in this a representation of an anti-communist accusation of Soviet media censorship. Now, such censorship surely did happen, as with Orwell’s two polemical tales being banned in the USSR, but right-wing, anti-Soviet propaganda (such as I suspect this film to be, allegorically) was a real danger: the “Holodomor” myth, as mentioned above, was originally Nazi propaganda that has persisted to this day, and all such propaganda has led to the counterrevolution that Stalin not only warned against, but also correctly predicted the outcome of, the turning-back of social progress.

Another change from McDonell’s story treatment to the screenplay that I find interesting is that of Young Charlie’s love interest. McDonell had him as a “ne’er-do-well” that she is engaged to, someone who is assumed by all in her town to be guilty of any crime committed there, including a hold-up.

In the film, this love interest becomes one of the two detectives pursuing Uncle Charlie. He is Detective Jack Graham (Carey). Just as with the switch from landladies to wealthy widows as Uncle Charlie’s victims, the switch from a criminal ne’er-do-well to a cop as Uncle Charlie’s rival seems to confirm my anti-communist allegory. Let me explain.

Fascists are fanatical anti-communists known for using violence to achieve their ends. Now, neither Detective Graham nor his colleague, Detective Fred Saunders (Ford) show any violence in the film, but other detectives out east, when pursuing another suspect in the widow stranglings, cause the suspect, whom we’ll know to be innocent, to run into and be sliced to pieces by the propellor of an airplane. Fascists have also demonstrated a peculiar charm to inspire the sympathies of the masses, as Hitler did with his speeches about ‘saving Germany’ from the Jews and communists.

Detective Graham, smitten with Young Charlie as soon as he and Saunders arrive at her house to pretend to survey a typical American family (actually to get photos of her Uncle Charlie as a suspect in the stranglings), puts on the charm to win her heart. His actions to this end allegorically represent fascism trying to charm liberals (whom she represents) into joining the far-right.

What we actually have in this film is a kind of perverse love triangle of him, her, and Uncle Charlie (recall the incestuous, Oedipal transference I discussed above between the latter two). Ideologically, it represents how the left and right vie for the liberal centre (the petite bourgeoisie that we see in Young Charlie’s family) to join them. We’re meant to believe that she should go for the detective who represents the right.

That her initial attraction to her uncle is incestuous is meant to make us abominate the adoption of leftist ideas, however charming they may be about sympathizing with the poor. That the violence of the far right is more or less completely excised from the detectives (that propellor death mentioned merely in passing) is meant to make us believe that the right is harmless.

Graham and Saunders are very interested in getting a photo of Young Charlie’s bedroom (Since her uncle, as a guest, is sleeping there, the detectives hope to get closer to him.). Apart from the detectives’ continued pursuit of her uncle, this getting into her bedroom has obvious sexual overtones.

When Young Charlie learns that the two men are detectives and not surveyors of a typical American family, she’s furious with Graham for lying to her, and she’s even more upset with him when he claimed her “wonderful” uncle could be a murderer. Graham has to put on some extra charm to win her over to him.

My associating of the detectives with fascism, again, as far-fetched as it sounds on the surface, might begin to make sense to you, Dear Reader, when we consider this film as an anti-communist allegory. While liberals, of whom Hitchcock can be counted as one, may publicly abominate fascism, secretly they will feel drawn to it if their class interests feel in danger from crisis or an organized working class.

If there’s one thing fascists are useful for, it’s fighting communism: one need only look into Operation Paperclip, Gladio, and the underground activities of Ukrainian Nazi sympathizers during the Cold War years, among many other examples, to see my point. Their violence and subterfuge are typically hidden or downplayed by the liberal media, as has been the case with the years since the US/NATO-backed coup in 2014 that replaced democratically-elected Yanukovych with a Ukrainian government and military that includes neonazis.

Such a hiding of violence and conspiracy can be seen allegorically in the activities of Graham and Saunders. One must wonder how detectives chasing a suspect in the eastern US, as it turns out, an innocent suspect, escalates to him running into an airplane propellor and getting sliced up. How is this just an unfortunate accident? There must have been considerable aggression on the part of the detectives to have led to that bloody end.

Fearing that Young Charlie will inform on him sooner or later, her uncle makes several attempts on her life. First, he sabotages the porch steps so she’ll fall down them. Then, he leaves the family car idling in the garage–whose door is stuck, making it almost impossible to get out–so when she goes in to use the car that night, she almost dies from inhaling the exhaust fumes. Finally, on the train to leave Santa Rosa with her there, he tries to throw her off as it’s going; but in the struggle, he falls off and dies under the tracks of an oncoming train.

A funeral is given to honour Uncle Charlie, whose crimes will never be known for fear of the crushing disgrace it would do to her family, surely causing her mother Emma to die of a broken heart. Only Young Charlie and Graham, still wooing her, know the truth.

According to my allegory, the film seems to be saying that the ‘truth’ about socialism would be too hurtful for the working class to know if bluntly stated, hence the telling of that ‘truth’ in this indirect manner, to soften the pain of its revelation.

Graham and Young Charlie doubt her uncle’s characterization of the world as a hell. When one is a member of the petite bourgeoisie (as she is) or higher up, it is fairly easy to suppose that the world has more than enough good in it to offset the bad. The global proletariat–especially those in the global south, as well as so many of us experiencing the neoliberalism of the past forty years (even well-off Luigi)–tend to have a less rosy image of the world.

Leftist Fundamentals

Photo by AXP Photography on Pexels.com

I: Introduction

We leftists tend to be our own worst enemies, far more so in many ways than the ruling class are. Instead of banding together in solidarity and planning how to overthrow the ruling class, we far too often would much rather bicker and argue over relatively minor issues of doctrine or political analysis.

We tend to forget, it seems, that the ruling class are far more united in the implementation of their agenda than we are. Sure, liberals currently are all in a dither over the recent reelection of Trump, wringing their hands and acting as though the world is about to come to an end, just as they did in November of 2016. I’d say, however, that all of this rending of garments is more of a media melodrama, meant to distract us all from how it’s more the political system is just continuing down the same neoliberal trajectory it’s been going along for the past forty years than it is some kind of imminent Night of the Long Knives.

We know the media is manipulating us, yet we don’t know. Each new outrage that gets thrust into our faces, be it the latest Israeli atrocity, updates on the Ukraine war, or Project 2025, is presented to us in a way meant to rile our anger, though not to unite us–rather, to get us to fight with each other over the ‘correct’ way to interpret what’s happening. The ruling classes laugh at us as we fight each other instead of fighting them, because the attempt to get ego gratification over ‘winning’ an argument with another leftist is far easier than setting aside our petty differences and fighting the real enemy.

None of this is to say, however, that there are no legitimate differences of opinion among leftists that can be safely disregarded. Unity on these fundamental points, the subject of this article, must be respected if we’re to move ahead and organize to overthrow the capitalist class. As for the petty issues so often bickered about, those can be dealt with once the revolution has been successfully achieved, and a socialist society is being built.

Photo by Ehsan Haque on Pexels.com

II: The Fundamentals

The following are the basic points we leftists should all agree on. There may be variation on how to interpret what these points exactly mean, or how they should be put into practice, but here they are, and they are not negotiable:

The complete replacement of capitalism with a state-planned, socialist economy. No social-democratic compromises with the market, please. We’ve tried that before, with the welfare capitalism of the post-war period, 1945-1973; when attempts like this are made, so that capitalism is ‘more comfortable’ for the working class, it’s only a matter of time before the ruling class gets sick and tired of paying higher taxes and negotiating with unions. Then they start seducing the public with the allure of ‘small government’ and the ‘free market,’ which will lead us right back down the Reaganite/Thatcherite path to the neoliberal nightmare we’re in now.

The only scenario in which a socialist state can tolerate a market economy is when a developing country needs to pull itself out of poverty by building up its productive forces, as countries like China and Vietnam have done. Once these productive forces have been fully built up, though, the left-wing factions of their communist parties should regain their preeminent influence, and guide the nation beyond the primary stage of socialism.

Now, I know any anarchists reading this will wince at my advocating a socialist state. As a former anarchist myself, I can understand how they feel. My suggestion to them is to use dialectical reasoning to resolve the contradiction between having and not having a state. A sublating of this contradiction would be to have the kind of state that withers away. I also recommend reading this.

Stalin was committed to the idea of advancing socialism to the point of a centralized state eventually dying out…when it would be possible to do so (not when there was the threat of a Nazi invasion, and not when the Americans had the atomic bomb). The obstacle to such an end goal was not his ‘tyrannical lust for power,’ contrary to imperialist propaganda (Stalin asked to resign from his position as General Secretary of the Soviet Union no less than four times, but was refused, contrary to the myth that he was a dictator with absolute power; for further reading of a defence of state socialism, anarchists can go here); that obstacle was imperialism’s relentless attempts at sabotaging socialism. This leads me to my next point.

Photo by Travel Photographer on Pexels.com

Commitment to opposing imperialism in all of its forms. The wish to free ourselves from capitalist exploitation must not be limited to the Anglo/American/NATO-allied countries of the First World. The entire globe must be liberated. No one is free until all of us are free.

The modern stage of capitalism, coming to reach a zenith from around the mid-to-late-19th century in such forms as the Scramble for Africa, has been imperialism. This consists of, as Lenin observed, the concentration of production and monopolies, the new role of the banks, finance capital, the export of capital to other countries, the division of the world among the capitalist powers, and competition between the great powers over which will dominate and be the greatest exploiter of the world.

A crucial element of imperialism is colonialism. One starts with the idea that one supposedly has the right to move into the land where someone else–the indigenous community–has lived for many, many generations, if not centuries, then supposedly has the right to take over and kick the indigenous population out. If they don’t like that, one can simply kill them. This is the basis of the imperial problem: that one can steal the land from those who lived there first.

This is the settler-colonialist foundation of the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, and many other countries. From this dubious foundation, the settler-colonialist imagines he has the right to go into other sovereign states and steal their natural resources to enrich himself from them. So from settler-colonialism, one proceeds to imperialism.

Just as the boss imagines he has the right to exploit his workers and steal the fruits of their labour to enrich himself, so does the imperialist, a natural outgrowth from the settler-colonialist, imagine he has the right to exploit the indigenous peoples and steal their natural resources. He can achieve this exploitation and theft militarily or through neocolonialism–an indirect control of the dependent country by such methods as financial obligation through international borrowing (think of the IMF and the World Bank).

Other forms of imperialist control include interfering with the political process of the dependent countries by fomenting coups d’état to remove democratically-elected heads of state to replace them with leaders who will be puppets of the empire. There are many examples of this slimy tactic: Iran, 1953; Guatemala, 1954; Chile, 1973; and Ukraine, 2014 are just a few examples.

Yet another form of imperial control is the manufacturing of consent for war to further the interests of empire; this manufacturing of consent is achieved through the deceitful media that works for empire, which leads to the next point.

Photo by Leon Huang on Pexels.com

One must recognize imperialist propaganda for what it is, never trust it, and always oppose it.

The managers of empire are relentless in their efforts to teach us who they want us to love, who they want us to hate, who to despise, and what we’re supposed to dismiss as ideas thrown into the dustbin of history. Hence, TINA and the “end of history.”

Imperial propagandists are fond of telling us of those heads of state regarded as ‘evil dictators’ who must be removed from power for the sake of preserving ‘freedom and democracy.’ Examples of such undesirables from the recent and more remote past include Stalin, Mao, Milosevic, Saddam, Gaddafi, Assad, Yanukovych, the Kims, Putin, Xi Jinping, etc.

This is not to say that all of the names above are completely beyond reproach. It is just that we should not feel antipathy towards them merely because the Anglo/American/NATO-allied empire says they are all bad men. For whatever wrongdoing these men are…or are not!…guilty of, the Western empire is guilty of much more wrongdoing.

A detailed discussion of the sins of capitalism is beyond the scope of this article, but if you want to delve deeper into that, Dear Reader, you can look at this and this, the latter being something I wrote back in my then-naïve anarchist phase, but scroll down to the fourth section, marked “Capitalist Crimes.”

The point to be made here is that the Western imperialists always need to have an enemy, a political scapegoat on whom they can project all of their vices. Starting around seventy-five years ago (as of the publication of this article, of course), that enemy was communism, which the imperialists were desperate to discredit out of a fear of leftist revolution.

The last great taboo to be broken in leftist thinking is the defence of Stalin, who–thanks to decades of having our heads pounded in with anti-communist propaganda–is portrayed as a kind of left-wing version of Hitler. The idea is as absurd as it is offensive, given that Stalin’s leadership of the Red Army–who did most of the work fighting off the Wehrmacht, with a sacrifice of about 27 million Soviets–was crucial in defeating the Nazis. One is normally called a hero for doing that.

Apart from the fact that the deaths under Stalin are wildly exaggerated and taken out of context (and imperialist propaganda is so pervasive that only Marxist-Leninist sources will offer a different perspective), one should consider how even in recent years, large percentages of Russians, who haven’t lived under a socialist government in decades, still have a high regard for Stalin and look back on the Soviet years with nostalgia. If people are worried about the admiration of dictators, they should worry about all the people out there who still admire Hitler.

But more importantly, what is the real reason Stalin is so vilified? The fact is, his leadership demonstrated that one really can stand up to the imperialists, successfully fight off a vicious fascist invasion, and build socialism in one’s country (i.e., provide free education, healthcare, housing, full employment, etc.). He took a backward society made up mostly of illiterate peasant farmers and transformed it into a modern, industrialized, nuclear-armed superpower by the time of his death. This all was achieved within the space of about twenty-five years. That is nothing short of impressive. The capitalist West felt nothing short of threatened.

The Western media couldn’t let such achievements be spread around freely, inspiring Western leftists to want to bring about socialism in their respective countries. So a propaganda Blitzkrieg had to be unleashed all over the capitalist West, terrifying people with a narrative that communism not only ‘doesn’t work,’ but also leads to brutal totalitarian dictatorships, even though the CIA secretly knew that the Gulag was nowhere near as bad as the media were claiming it was.

Of course, the western propagandists had a lot of help from ‘dissident leftists,’ like George Orwell, Milovan Djilas, Noam Chomsky, Leon Trotsky, Mikhail Gorbachev, and Nikita Khrushchev, the last of whom denounced Stalin and his ‘cult of personality’ in a secret speech in 1956. Such traitors as these have given us leftists the “unkindest cut of all.”

After the counterrevolution was complete by the early 1990s, and the imperialists as the only superpower could do anything they wanted to any other country with impunity, it was time to look for a new enemy to draw attention away from the discontents felt in the imperial core, and in the 2000s, that enemy became Islamic terrorism. Though there was considerable opposition to the Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003 to steal from the country, the notion of regime change to remove ‘brutal dictators’ and further the cause of ‘freedom and democracy’ has been the accepted rationale–thanks to the corporate media–for all the banging of the war drums since.

Of course, having Democrats in the White House has made it a lot easier to manufacture consent among liberals, hence the Obama administration’s destabilizing (with France’s help) of Libya–with virtually no protest from those who’d protested Bush’s invasion of Iraq–to remove Gaddafi, all because–apart from Sarkozy’s financial entanglements–the Libyan leader wanted to establish an African currency, based on gold, that would free Africa from being chained to the IMF and World Bank, something the Western imperialists would never abide.

Then the imperialists went after Assad, their real reason being, again, to steal their oil, while using the media to lie to us about Assad ‘gassing his people’ and other such nonsense. They‘re still stealing Syrian oil (and wheat), by the way.

Yanukovych wanted to partner with Russia to help Ukraine deal with its financial problems without having to be dependent on the IMF, but such a decision was unacceptable to the West, hence his ouster, to be replaced with a government and military including Russophobic Neo-Nazis. This anti-Russian attitude leads us to the next enemy of the empire.

Russia is reviled not because ‘Putin helped Trump win’ in 2016, a baseless accusation that just fueled the fire and helped manufacture consent for the needlessly bellicose attitude that has led to this awful war in Ukraine, taking away billions of dollars that could be used to help the American poor and fix their country’s crumbling infrastructure. The recent Russophobia and Sinophobia are really because Russia and China, as objects of American hate, are getting stronger (i.e., the BRICS alliance) while the Western empire is deservedly dying.

Still, the Western media, mostly owned by the top oligarchs and, as capitalists, have interests fully entwined with those of imperialism, have convinced a huge swathe of the Western population into believing that Russia and China are our latest enemies, as well as Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, etc. For us to believe such nonsense is, of course, far more convenient than to believe the far more uncomfortable truth, that it’s our leaders, both conservative and liberal, who are the problem.

Photo by Nico Becker on Pexels.com

We must stop hating only one half of the ruling class. It’s the entire system–DNC and GOP, Tory and Labour, Tory and Liberal, etc.–that must be opposed. We must give up on such things as Trump Derangement Syndrome. It’s so ridiculous–and hypocritical–that liberals are up in arms whenever Trump does something admittedly awful, such as rounding up ‘illegals,’ putting them in cages via ICE, and kicking them out of the country, but when Obama or Biden did more or less the same thing, liberals largely ignore or rationalize the problem.

On the other side of the coin, Biden and Harris are rightly despised for their support of Israel and its ‘right to self-defence’ (translation: its apartheid, genocidal policies), but little thought is given to the fact that Trump will be every bit as supportive of those policies when he comes back into office in 2025.

Enough of the black-and-white thinking! In the larger scheme of politics, the ideological differences between conservative and liberal are petty. Both sides are capitalist and imperialist: that’s what matters, not the minutiae that they disagree about. That their squabbles are mere right-wing infighting is especially true in a neoliberal world in which income inequality is at an extreme, homelessness is an epidemic in many parts of the world, most mainstream politicians, conservative or liberal, support the US/NATO proxy war of helping Ukrainian Nazis to fight Russians, thereby provoking the danger of a possibly nuclear WWIII, and most of these politicians support Zionism.

We cannot expect real change when we get upset if a party representing one side of the capitalist class, the side we don’t personally like, wins, but we rest on our laurels when the party representing the side we do like wins. The entire system must be dismantled. The only way to achieve this dismantling is through revolution, not through voting, which is meaningless and only perpetuates the system.

As Mao said, “Revolution is not a dinner party.” Revolution isn’t ‘nice.’ It is violent, it is forceful, it is difficult, and it requires planning and organization. People like voting because it is easy; the ruling class likes voting because it takes the people’s minds off of revolution.

A true left-wing revolution, as opposed to mere liberal, social-democrat reforms, will guarantee such things as these:

–the means of production are controlled by the workers
private property is abolished
–commodities are produced to provide for everyone
elimination of class differences, leading to
–…no more centralized state monopoly on power, and…
–…no more money (i.e., replaced with a gift economy)
–an end to imperialism and all the wars it causes
–an end to the huge gap between the rich and the poor
–an end to global hunger in the Third World
–free universal health care 
–free education for all, up to university, ending illiteracy
–housing for all
–equal rights for women, people of colour, LGBT people, disabled people
–employment for all, with decent remuneration and hours
–a social safety net in case of job loss

Conservatives abominate such changes. Liberals speak of gradual, gentle nudging in the left-wing direction without ever really delivering. When some progress has been made in the leftist direction, the right-wingers complain, liberals tend–in varying degrees–to cave in, and we move back in the rightist direction, as we have for the past thirty to forty years. Small wonder Stalin once said, “Social-Democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism.”

Does that quote sound too extreme to you, Dear Reader? Consider how the Social Democratic Party of Germany opposed the failed communist German Revolution of 1918-1919, favoring instead the Weimar Republic, upon whose foundation it took only a decade and a half thereafter to lapse into Nazism. Consider how the Democratic Party, about five years after the dissolution of the USSR, gutted welfare, created the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (merging the American media into six corporations), and interfered with the 1996 Russian election to keep pro-US Yeltsin in power. Finally, there’s of course the Biden administration’s pouring of money into Ukraine.

Photo by Alexander Popovkin on Pexels.com

III: Conclusion

That list you saw a couple of paragraphs ago–those are the leftist fundamentals, right there. I just had to expand on some of them, and make a few more important points to show how indispensable these ideas are to eliminate capitalism and imperialism once and for all.

The point is that once a revolution has been achieved, that isn’t the end of the struggle. The forces of reaction will do everything in their power to restore capitalism, and we have to have a strong defence against that. This is why a socialist state is needed: not only to implement the transition (the dictatorship of the proletariat, or a workers’ state–true democracy) from capitalism to full communism, but also to protect the gains of the revolution; otherwise, our efforts will all be in vain.

Whenever a socialist state was either weak or non-existent, the revolution was short-lived. The Paris Commune and the Spanish Revolution of 1936 are noteworthy examples of such nobly lofty, but ultimately failed, revolutions.

In today’s perilous times, we can’t afford to be soft leftists (translation: liberals); we have to be HARD leftists, always wary of backsliding into liberalism. That means that in today’s imperialist stage of late capitalism, we can’t stop at being Marxists: we have to be Marxist-Leninists.

To be this way, we must advocate a state-planned socialist economy; we must oppose all forms of imperialism, but especially in its current Anglo-American-NATO form as the contemporary, primary contradiction (though if, in the future, any of the emerging powers from BRICS grow to be substantially imperialist, they must then be opposed, too); we mustn’t trust the mainstream, corporate media and its pro-empire propaganda; and we must oppose the entire system of capitalism/imperialism, not just get upset if, for example, the GOP wins, but be content if the Democrats win (or vice versa).

There are no quick and easy answers. Our enemies are far too well-equipped militarily, and far too adept at using the media and modern tech to play mind-games on us and surveil us, to keep us compliant. We must similarly undergo training–that is, our young and able-bodied comrades–and we must learn to organize and plant seeds of revolution in the minds of as many fence-sitters out there as we can. This latter is what I try to do here on this blog.

Let’s do it, comrades.

‘African scholar on trial in Paris for “genocide denial” while the West turns a blind eye to the present genocide in Palestine,’ from Dennis Riches’s Blog

Scholar Charles Onana is being falsely accused of genocide denial, with regards to the tragedy in Rwanda, while his Western accusers look the other way as the genocide in Palestine continues.

Analysis of ‘A Streetcar Named Desire’

I: Introduction

A Streetcar Named Desire is a 1947 play by Tennessee Williams, premiered on December 3rd of that year. It’s considered one of the greatest plays of the 20th century, and is Williams’s most popular, being among his most performed and adapted in many forms, including notably the 1951 film.

The original cast of ASND was made up of almost all the same actors as in the film version, except for Blanche DuBois having been playing by Jessica Tandy onstage, and by Vivien Leigh in the film.

Here’s a link to the entire play.

II: Famous Actors for the Roles

Apart from Tandy and Leigh, other notable actresses who have played Blanche are Tallulah Bankhead (for whom Williams actually wrote the character, though she hadn’t played the role until 1956, because she was felt to be too strong for it), Ann-Margret, Cate Blanchett, Blythe Danner, Uta Hagen, and Rachel Weisz. Every actress Williams saw performing the role he loved, feeling that each of them brought something different to Blanche.

Apart from the most famous portrayal by Marlon Brando, Stanley Kowalski has been played notably by Anthony Quinn, Treat Williams, Alec Baldwin, Rip Torn, Aidan Quinn, and Christopher Walken.

Apart from Kim Walker, Stella–Blanche’s younger sister and Stanley’s wife–has been played by Beverly D’Angelo and Diane Lane.

Karl Malden played Harold “Mitch” Mitchell in the original stage production and in the 1951 film.

III: Themes

A central theme of ASND is narcissism, with the whole spectrum of pride/vanity to humility/shame expressed at many different points at the extremes and in between them. Blanche is vain, insufferably so to Stanley, who has a fierce pride of his own. Stella is much more submissive, forgiving of her husband’s brutality, giving in to his demand to put Blanche in a mental institution, and believing his denials of a rape of her sister that he’s obviously guilty of. Mitch is most gentlemanly to ladies, but when he learns of Blanche’s waywardness, he loses his sensitivity almost immediately.

Blanche’s narcissism is of the covert variety, expressed in a passive-aggressive form, her often seeming to play the victim. Her narcissism is a defence against psychological fragmentation, a defence that apish Stanley will break through, causing her to have a nervous breakdown at the play’s end. Her very name, meaning ‘white,’ suggests her narcissistic False Self of sweetness, purity, and ladylike sense of culture, but it also hides her True Self of promiscuity, snobbishness, and ethnic bigotry (i.e., against the Polish).

Stanley is her diametrical opposite, making hardly the slightest attempt to hide his harshness (or so it would seem). His wish to break through all of Blanche’s masks and disguises and reveal the truth in no way redeems him of his cruelty. He is perceived as an ape, and rightly so, for he rids us of all doubt by the end of the play.

So along with the spectrum between narcissism/pride/vanity and humility/shame, there’s also a spectrum between social artifice/fakery and brutal honesty in ASND. In the case of this latter spectrum, it should be obvious which character personifies social artifice, and which brutal honesty. A character like Mitch falls somewhere in between the extremes, as we’ll see later on.

IV: Scene One

A verse by Hart Crane (the fifth from “The Broken Tower”), which is put before the beginning of Williams’s play, seems to express Blanche’s situation when she arrives in New Orleans. She’s looking for a building on a street called “Elysian Fields,” whose heavenly associations are ironic given what a hell-hole she finds her new home to be.

She is a Southern belle used to a life of dainty clothes, perfume, comfort, and culture in Belle Reve (“sweet dream,” loosely translated), the old home she’s lost to creditors, forcing her to live with Stella and Stanley, or else face homelessness. Living in such a shockingly poor home will be a crushing humiliation for Blanche.

To get to Elysian Fields, she’s taken a streetcar named Desire, then transferred to one called “Cemeteries” (Williams, page 3). The streetcar named Desire was inspired by an actual streetcar with the same name, which ran a half-block away from Williams’s apartment on Toulouse Street in the New Orleans’s French Quarter, where he wrote the play.

The names of the streetcars, as well as the name of Stella’s and Stanley’s home, have been chosen as more than just names of places in the real world, though. Desire leads to cemeteries…rather like, the wages of sin is death…and death leads to an afterlife that may seem like heaven, but is actually hell. It should be easy for anyone who has read or watched a performance of ASND to see how these names are points on the trajectory of Blanche’s life, just as the verse from Crane’s poem reflects her life.

She has led a life of desire–from her marriage to a husband who, it turns out, had homosexual feelings he acted on, then killed himself after knowing her shocked reaction to this acting-on them (recall that Williams himself was gay, and therefore his sexuality rubbed off in some of his plays), to her own promiscuity, which included a sexual relationship with one of her teen students. This inappropriate relationship led to the bad karma of her being fired as a high school teacher. We see how desire has led to the cemeteries of her husband and her job.

And now she has to live in the hellish ‘heaven’ of her sister’s shabby home, to be shared with a man whose bestial nature will be soon apparent to her.

When Blanche sees her sister for the first time in a long time, she addresses her as “Stella for Star!” (page 6). Since this is the literal meaning of her younger sister’s name, Blanche’s imagined poetic pointing-out of that meaning demonstrates her literary pretensions early on in the play.

Though she affects refinement, her own vulgarity and ignorance also come out early in the play as she and Stella discuss Stanley, whom Blanche not only refers to as one of those “Polacks,” but also imagines as being “something like Irish,” but “not so–highbrow?” (page 9) His friends are “a mixed lot,” according to Stella, and are therefore “heterogeneous–types” to Blanche, which suggests a quite racial categorizing of them; after all, there’s Pablo (Nick Dennis in the original production and the 1951 film).

After Blanche has sorrowfully told Stella about the loss of Belle Reve, being so ashamed of its loss that she imagines her sister’s questioning about it to be a judgement on her for losing it (pages 11 and 12), she meets Stanley. It’s so fitting that Brando exemplified Stanislavski‘s Method Acting in the role of Stanley, his name almost sounding like a pun on Stanislavski, since there’s no affectation whatsoever to be seen in Kowalsky; while Blanche’s character seems to require the technique of the classical acting style, with its “saw[ing of] the air too much with [one’s] hand,” and its “tear[ing of] a passion to tatters.”

A cat screeches near the window, startling sensitive Blanche. In the film, Brando’s Stanley imitates the cat’s screeching, a kind of foreshadowing of how upsetting he’ll soon be to her. In fact, he is upsetting to her already by the end of this first scene, when he brings up her marriage (page 15). Bringing this up triggers painful memories for her that will be brought up in full later.

When I referred to Blanche as narcissistic and fake, neither of these faults necessitate our lack of empathy for her. She’s suffered terribly, and she’s about to suffer even worse by the end of the play, thanks to Stanley’s merciless cruelty. Her narcissism and maintaining of illusions are the only things that are keeping her from falling apart completely.

V: Scene Two

When Stanley learns from Stella of Blanche’s loss of Belle Reve, he starts worrying that his wife has been cheated of the family property, for the “Napoleonic Code” (which, contrary to what Williams believed, did not exist in Louisiana at the time) states that what belongs to the wife belongs to the husband and vice versa (though Stanley doesn’t seem too concerned with the vice versa). If Blanche has lost the family property, then so has Stella…and so has Stanley.

The point is that Stanley is a very domineering husband, and he believes he has the right to extend the patriarchal dominance of his home onto Stella’s sister. He doesn’t even like his wife’s leaving him “a cold plate on ice” for dinner while she and Blanche go out to eat, then to a show, so he and his friends can play poker in his home without any women disturbing them (page 16).

His utter lack of respect for a woman’s rights is on full display when he starts pulling out Blanche’s dresses from her wardrobe trunk in search of any documents to tell him what happened to Belle Reve. He imagines Blanche’s fancy-looking clothes are all expensive, too much so for a teacher’s salary, so he says he’ll have an acquaintance in a jewelry store do an appraisal of her “diamonds,” “pearls and gold bracelets” (pages 18-19). Stella insists that the “diamonds” are just rhinestones. Stanley still thinks he has the right to Stella’s ‘wealth.’

Stanley’s borderline, if not outright, misogyny is to the point of bluntly telling Blanche that he has no interest in complimenting women on their looks, since in his opinion, they either already know they’re beautiful and therefore don’t need to be complimented, or they’re so vain that they “give themselves credit for more than what they’ve got.” (page 21) Blanche, in her thirties and with fading beauty, has an already fragile self-concept and therefore doesn’t need Stanley’s kind of bluntness.

He doesn’t take it as well as he dishes it out, though. When she responds to his bluntness by calling him “a little bit on the primitive side,” and says she could tell no more about him than that he’s a man her sister married, he throws a brief tantrum (pages 21-22). In his brutal honesty, he should not be confused with men like Alceste the misanthrope, who sincerely hated social hypocrisy in spite of his continuing attraction to the flirtatious coquette Célimène, who had eyes for him as well as for other men. Stanley, on the other hand, is simply an ape.

His brutish demanding that Blanche show him legal papers connected with the DuBois plantation leads to him grabbing love letters from her husband. Stanley’s insensitivity to her husband’s letters is a touch that insults them, meaning she’ll need to burn them (page 23). He has again triggered painful memories about a husband with the opposite personality of Stanley’s, a sensitive poet, not a growling gorilla.

Her saying she’d not have him touch her letters “because of their–intimate nature…” (page 23) is a foreshadowing of the horrible thing that Stanley will do to her at the play’s–pardon the expression–climax. She surrenders to his looking through her legal papers, just as she’ll surrender to him in a more physical way later.

It’s interesting how his use of legality to persecute her parallels his use of physicality to persecute her. Feminists would have a field day analyzing these parallels, as I’m sure they already have. In this connection, I also find it interesting how the Napoleonic Code didn’t exist in Louisiana at the time of the story: Stanley’s imagined authority over Stella and Blanche is as fake as Blanche’s pretensions to culture and high breeding. As I said above, he has no business pretending to be any more honest than she does.

VI: Scene Three

Stanley, Mitch, Pablo, and Steve (Rudy Bond in the original production and the 1951 film) are playing poker while Stella and Blanche are out. Poker night is an all-boys club in which women are persona non grata, of course. It’s bad enough when people in high positions of political, economic, and religious power and authority use sex roles and the patriarchal family to divide the sexes and keep women down; when working-class men reinforce these divisions and discriminatory attitudes, it makes proletarian solidarity all the more difficult to cultivate.

Another example of this lack of solidarity, but from a racial angle, is Pablo suggesting going to get some chop suey from the “Chinaman’s” (page 27), this being a term which, by the time of the writing of the play, must have already begun to acquire derogatory overtones in the US. Pablo, as an Hispanic and therefore surely someone familiar with being on the receiving end of ethnic slurs (Stanley will have called him a “greaseball” by the end of the play, and I suspect it won’t be the first time), should have at least some sensitivity to how inappropriate “Chinaman” sounds, as should Stanley, as a Polish-American who is infuriated with Blanche saying “Polack.”

Of the poker players, Mitch is the only unmarried one (page 28), and he has a sick mother at home, so he worries about her and must leave the poker game. His duty to her gives off the impression that he’s a ‘mama’s boy,’ and that he’s ‘sensitive.’ Blanche will soon pick up on his “superior” manner (page 30), and see in him the hope of a husband. Stanley shows his contempt for Mitch’s devotion to his mother by saying the guys will “fix [him] a sugar-tit.” (page 28)

Mitch is pleased to meet Blanche when she and Stella have returned and he has stepped away from the poker game for the moment, so he is playing the role of the gentleman while the other boys continue with their all-boys-club card game. Stanley, predictably, feels the most invaded by the feminine presence.

He assures Blanche that none of the men are interested in standing up when she enters the room. He’d have her and Stella go up to Steve’s place and sit with Eunice, Steve’s wife (Peg Hillias in the original stage production and the 1951 film), whom he treats with a shabbiness comparable to how Stanley treats Stella and Blanche. Though it’s nearly two-thirty in the morning, Stanley sees the poker game as not finishing any time soon, and he spanks Stella on the thigh…or is it the ass?…to discourage her and Blanche from staying; this only angers her.

Gentlemanly Mitch, however, will repeatedly insist, “Poker shouldn’t be played in a house with women” (pages 36 and 37). Stanley is annoyed that Mitch, more interested in Blanche than the game, won’t come back to it. He’s particularly angry when Blanche turns on the radio (page 35). He rushes over and smashes it.

Stella, furious, calls Stanley an animal and tells his friends to go home immediately. He goes wild at her ending his sacred card game and goes after her. His friends try to calm him down, but it’s no good.

Both husband and wife go offstage, and we know that he hits her (page 35). Both she and Blanche scream. Stella is taken upstairs to Steve’s and Eunice’s place while Stanley’s friends try again to calm him down by pouring shower water on him, but he just gets angrier, curses at them, and hits them. They all leave with their poker winnings (page 37).

With Stella gone, Stanley finally realizes he’s screwed up. Now we have the famous moment when he screams out “Stella!” repeatedly. Without her, he’s no longer the dominant male, but he’s been reduced to a weepy little boy.

Perhaps his weepiness in part has triggered her maternal instinct, but in any case, she goes back to him and forgives him, a shocking thing for Blanche, Eunice, and any reasonable person to see. Stella is letting him manipulate her with that helpless little boy routine, a classic page out of the narcissist’s playbook.

Eunice would get the law on him for hitting his wife and making such noise so late at night. Just as the men demonstrated by trying to calm him down, there is no social acceptance of violence against women, though that doesn’t mean men never get away with it.

Blanche comes out, horrified that her sister, with child, went back to the man who hit her. Mitch is there to talk with Blanche, since he’s still interested in pursuing her. What should be a bad omen for her is how, in spite of how Mitch is still acting the gentleman, he trivializes this moment of domestic violence.

VII: Scene Four

The next morning, Blanche wants to talk Stella out of remaining in her relationship with Stanley after having seen how bestial he is capable of being. As with Mitch, Stella trivializes what happened the night before, which of course is all the more disturbing.

Stella thinks that Stanley’s having felt ashamed of himself for his barbaric behaviour is enough to forgive him, when she knows full well that he’ll do such things again, and soon.

Stella was as much of a Southern belle as Blanche, but the former being taken off the pedestal didn’t upset her the way the latter was forcibly removed from it. Blanche cannot conceive how Stella is willing to tolerate living with such a man as Stanley.

Part of the difference in the two women’s attitudes is how Blanche, unlike Stella, still believes in romantic notions of gallantry, illusions to protect her–it would seem–from the brutality of reality. When Stella speaks of how Stanley, on their wedding night, went around their home with one of her slippers smashing all the light-bulbs with it, instead of being terrified, as Blanche would have been, Stella admits to having been thrilled by his wildness (pages 41-42).

Blanche feels there’s a desperate need to get herself and Stella away from Stanley. She remembers a wealthy oilman named Shep Huntleigh, who she imagines could use his money to get her and Stella away from that brute of a husband. She imagines she’ll get Western Union through the telephone operator to contact Shep and tell him that she and Stella are in a desperate situation and need his help (pages 43-44). This urgent attempt to get Western Union and contact Shep will be repeated in Scene Ten (page 95), at the climax of the play, when Blanche is sure that Stanley, alone with her at home while Stella is in the hospital to have her baby, won’t have anyone there to hold his leash.

This Shep Huntleigh represents, in another way, the diametrical opposite of Stanley. He’s not only wealthy, but he’s also a gentleman, Blanche’s gallant, romantic ideal. According to Heinz Kohut‘s conception of the bipolar self, the two poles that give a person a stable sense of self are ones based on someone to idealize (in childhood, the idealized parental imago) and someone to mirror the grandiose self. When both of these needs are met, one can live with a healthy, restrained, and moderate sense of narcissism. If one of the poles fails, or is thwarted, the other can compensate. If both fail, one is at best in an extremely fragile position (as Blanche is, already at the beginning of the play), and at worst, one experiences psychological fragmentation and a psychotic break with reality (as happens to Blanche at the end of the play).

Blanche is hoping that a courtship with Mitch will lead not only to a husband who can ‘make an honest woman of her,’ so she can put her promiscuous past and reputation behind her, but also to a satisfying of her narcissistic need for someone to mirror back her grandiose self to her. His gentlemanly routine of putting her up on a pedestal will satisfy that need.

When Mitch learns, through Stanley’s merciless probing into her past, of her promiscuity when she lived in Laurel (living in The Flamingo, a hotel known for prostitution, her sexual relationship with one of her underage students), and he refuses to marry her, she uses her idealization of Shep Huntleigh, a kind of Oedipal transference of the idealized parental imago, to keep her fragile self hanging on. Of course, Stanley tears that compensatory fantasy apart, and she goes mad in the end.

The psychiatrist (played by Richard Garrick in the original stage production and the 1951 movie)–who, with the matron (Ann Dere), comes to take Blanche to the mental hospital at the end of the play–temporarily destroys her ever-so-faint hopes to be taken away by Shep; but he wisely humours her, putting on the gentlemanly act to make her cooperate, and revives for the moment her hope to have the idealizing pole satisfied.

Anyway, Blanche continues trying to convince her sister that Stanley is not worth keeping. When Stella speaks of the “things that happen between a man and a woman in the dark,” making such things as Stanley hitting her “seem–unimportant” (page 46), we’re reminded of how “thrilled” she was at his smashing of the light-bulbs. A nasty man is often exciting to a woman, where a nice guy finishes last. As the Chinese say, “男人不壞,女人不愛” (“If men aren’t bad, women won’t love them.”) Bad boys are sexy, and in this observation come so many of women’s problems with men. Recall, in this connection, how good-looking young Brando was in the 1951 film, with his muscle tone and his shirt off. I’ll bet the girls were swooning with ecstasy at the sight of him on the screen.

Blanche responds to what Stella says by pointing out what I said above about the title of the play–that it’s not just inspired by the name of a streetcar near where Williams was writing his play. Stella is talking about her “brutal desire,” a streetcar that brought Blanche to this Godforsaken home of Stella’s and Stanley’s. A streetcar named Desire, then one named Cemeteries…Blanche imagines that Stella’s desire will lead to her death at Stanley’s hands.

As Blanche goes on condemning him as “common,” he’s approaching home and overhearing her words. He is fuming inside as she speaks of how his wife should be with a better man than “an animal,” someone “subhuman” and “bestial” (page 47).

Since Blanche has been bad-mouthing him so much to his wife, he’ll get his revenge on her by learning the gossip about how “common” she is, making all of her pretensions to art and culture seem utterly hypocritical.

VIII: Scene Five

Stella and Blanche can hear Steve and Eunice fighting upstairs, the latter accusing the former of fooling around with some “blonde,” which Steve denies (page 49). The fight escalates, she throws something at him, then he hits her, and she wants to get the police (page 50). She runs off, and he goes after her. We sense that domestic violence in the ‘heavenly’ Elysian Fields is not limited to Stella and Stanley.

Stanley comes by, and Blanche–in her usual ‘ladylike’ voice–taunts him by saying he must be an Aries, since he’s so “forceful and dynamic,” and he loves “to bang things around” (page 51). Naturally, he’s annoyed at these words. Stella tells her that Stanley was born just after Christmas, making him a Capricorn. Blanche comments, “the Goat!”, annoying him all the more.

When she mentions that her birthday is the following month, in mid-September, making her a Virgo, which is the Virgin, Stanley–already knowing a few things about her scandalous reputation in Laurel–has an opportunity to insult her back. He mentions a man named Shaw, a name common enough that she can pretend this is not someone she knows in particular, a man she apparently met in Laurel, at a hotel named the Flamingo, the place where prostitution goes on (as I mentioned above), so naturally, Blanche denies any association with it.

When Stanley leaves, though, Blanche asks Stella, in a state of great anxiety, if she’s heard any dirty gossip about her (page 52). Stella denies having heard anything nasty about Blanche. Around this time, Steve and Eunice have returned in each others’ arms, fully reconciled; their making-up parallels the making-up of Stanley and Stella that happened so soon before.

Blanche explains to Stella the reason for her bad reputation in Laurel. The loss of Belle Reve, on top of her husband’s suicide and the scandal surrounding her sexual relationship with her teen student, put her into a situation so desperate that she had “to be seductive,” to “put on soft colours” (page 53). She’s needed to do this with men “in order to pay for–one night’s shelter!”

She’s found that “men don’t…even admit your existence unless they are making love to you. And you’ve got to have your existence admitted by someone, if you’re going to have someone’s protection.” So she’s got to “put a–paper lantern over the light”, something she habitually does so people won’t see her aging and fading beauty, something she’s terrified of, just as she’s terrified of the light revealing the truth of her scandalous behaviour, something she’s feen forced into because of her losses…but the cruel, judgemental world will never be understanding to her about that.

And Stanley is the epitome of that cruel and judgemental world, not that he’s any better, of course.

She senses that Stanley wants to throw her out of his and Stella’s home, so she doesn’t want to be a burden to her sister, something she promises she won’t be in the most hysterical of words. Stella is shocked by how emotional Blanche is getting. Blanche is placing all of her hopes on Mitch, with whom she is having a date at seven that very night (page 54).

In anticipation of Stella learning, through Stanley, about Blanche’s reputation in Laurel as a ‘woman of loose morals,’ she frantically insists that on dates with Mitch, he’s gotten only “a good night kiss” from her (page 55). She wants his respect, yet she’s terrified of losing him, hence she’s so sensitive about her age. She wants him to think of her as “prim and proper.”

Of course, Mitch wants her to think of him as a gentleman. He has his social mask, and she has hers, symbolized by that paper lantern over the light, to hide the aging on her face.

Stanley returns, and he leaves with Stella, with Steve and Eunice accompanying them. Blanche is alone in the apartment.

Just before Mitch is to show up for his date with her that night, Blanche sees a handsome young man (played by Wright King in the 1951 film), who appears at the door. He says he’s “collecting for the Evening Star,” a newspaper. She jokes about him as a star taking up collections because she finds him so attractive, but he is so innocent and sweet (just the way she likes her boys), he doesn’t understand her joke.

I suspect that she, in her fragile, unstable mental state, is imagining this boy’s presence. He can easily be seen as reminding her of not only the boy she had the affair with, but also her husband back when she first knew him, when the couple were both very young. Her student/lover presumably reminded her of her husband, too.

The boy collecting money is so perfect to her. He’s polite, he calls her “ma’am,” and he’d never treat her like a whore. He’s shying away as she makes her advances to him.

Finally, she gives him a kiss on the mouth (page 57), but not wanting to go any further, as with Mitch, she sends the boy off. And fittingly, just after he disappears, Mitch arrives for their date.

IX: Scene Six

At 2:00 a.m. of the same night of their date, Mitch notes that Blanche is getting tired. After he drops her off at home, it seems that he’ll take “that streetcar named Desire” back home, for we can see just how much they desire each other. Still, he’s sad because he thinks he hasn’t entertained her much tonight.

Though she still wants him to think of her as a lady who isn’t cheap, she still likes tempting him. She’d have him come into Stella’s and Stanley’s place, since the husband and wife aren’t back home yet. She also wants to give Mitch a drink, and she even asks him, “Voulez-vous couchez avec moi ce soir?” She also says in French that it’s a shame he doesn’t understand the question, but of course she’s happy he doesn’t (page 61). They actually go into the bedroom, her carrying the drinks.

A little later, she has him pick her up to see how light she is. Still, she’d have him let her go and be a gentleman while her sister and Stanley are still away (page 63). She fears Stanley exposing her bad reputation in Laurel, but he can’t resist continuing her coquettishness.

Almost immediately after Mitch’s picking her up and putting her back down, she brings up how much she doesn’t like Stanley, with her worries that he may have told Mitch some bad things about her (page 64). It’s interesting to see this juxtaposition of her teasing of Mitch with her fears of him learning of her ‘loose’ ways in Laurel. It’s as if her unconscious death drive, her Jungian Shadow, is deliberately sabotaging her date.

She gets nervous when Mitch asks her age (page 65). He asks because of his mother, who has wanted to know more about her. After all, his mother will probably die in a few months, and she wants to make sure her son is settled (page 66).

Next, the conversation turns toward Blanche’s old husband, a sad topic for her. The two married when very young. He was “different.” He had “a nervousness, a softness and tenderness which wasn’t like a man’s,” but not at all “effeminate-looking” (page 66). He needed her help.

Eventually, she found him with another man.

They pretended that nothing had happened, then the three of them went to Moon Lake Casino to be drunk and dance, to the music of the Varsouviana in particular. Then her husband broke away from her, ran outside, put a revolver in his mouth, and shot himself.

He ran out and killed himself because, on the dance floor, she’d told him he disgusted her (page 67). So she blames herself for his suicide.

Now, in the 1951 film version, all references to homosexuality in the play–however indirect–were censored for obvious reasons. Instead, the husband is portrayed as simply weak, overly sensitive, weepy, and a poet–all the gay stereotypes without the gay. A similar excising of homosexuality in a Tennessee Williams play was done in the 1958 film adaptation of Cat on a Hot Tin Roof.

Empathizing with Blanche, and seeming to be similarly sensitive, Mitch reaches out to her after hearing her tragic story. She needs someone, as he needs someone. He’s seriously considering marrying her.

Except…

X: Scene Seven

In mid-September, it’s Blanche’s birthday, and Stanley has plans of ruining it for her (page 69). He’s found the dirt on her that he needs to prove that she has no business calling him ‘common.’

To add to his irritation, she is “soaking in a hot tub” on a day when the temperature is 100. He can’t stand how Stella serves cokes to “Her Majesty in the tub.” He’s convinced, “from the most reliable sources–which [he has] checked on”, that Blanche is a liar about her past (page 70).

Her singing in the bathtub, like a “canary bird,” is annoying him all the more. He can’t stand her pretense of being some kind of “lily,” all sweet and delicate, when he’s discovered that she, in his judgement, is a common whore.

The sad thing about the animosity between both of them is how it’s based on prejudicial notions of class, ethnicity, and sex. His faults, in her estimation, are because he’s a low-class “Polack.” Her faults, in his estimation, are because she’s a ‘slut.’

His real faults don’t come from his being working-class or Polish. Anyone, of any ethnicity or any social class, can be irascible, crass, rude, or violent, as Stanley is. Her real faults don’t stem from her private sexual life. Any woman, with or without literary and cultural pretensions, can fall the way Blanche has fallen, given the combination of misfortunes she’s had to suffer.

Her promiscuity should be perfectly forgivable if she can find a husband and commit to him. Her questionable relationship with her seventeen-year-old student can easily be forgotten given the same positive change in her fortunes.

What’s more, what he does to her towards the end of the play renders her sins insignificant in comparison to his. This play demonstrates the cruelty of the old double standard between the sexes more vividly than perhaps any story out there. The double standard can be expressed in the metaphorical use of words used in dog-breeding: when a man screws around, he’s a stud; when a woman does it, she’s a bitch.

This cruel double standard can help us to understand why Blanche does the prim and proper routine, why she makes mental escapes into a world of romance, poetry, and gallant gentlemen, and why she sings like a canary bird in the bathtub. It’s all a desperate attempt on her part to survive and stay sane.

Of course, if we had a society that had institutions to care for unfortunates like Blanche, she would never need to sell herself to survive. And if that society gave workers like Stanley the full fruits of their labour, and if that labour was meaningful instead of alienating, he probably wouldn’t be half the ape that he acts like.

But I digress. Back to the story.

Now, while Stanley is telling Stella about Blanche’s lies about only ever being kissed by men, as she’s told Mitch (page 70), and about quitting teaching merely because of her nerves, rather than being fired for sexual misconduct with a minor, Blanche is in the tub singing about such phony things as paper moons, cardboard seas, the Barnum and Bailey circus, honky-tonk parades, and melodies from penny arcades–things that wouldn’t be make-believe if she had a man who believed in her (pages 70-71). Just as I said above: she wouldn’t need to indulge in all the fakery if she had a man to love her…as she once had.

We can’t expect any compassion from merciless Stanley, though, of course. He’s found fault in her, and he has all the reasons he needs to hate her.

Stella tries to reason with Stanley, to get him to understand the misfortunes her sister has gone through to bring her to her current situation. She brings up Blanche’s “degenerate” husband (page 73). Stanley is deaf to all of this: he’d rather hate Blanche than pity her.

In fact, Stanley has told Mitch all about Blanche’s scandalous past, and though he’s infuriated with Stanley for blackening her reputation, he’s checked the sources of Stanley’s stories and has confirmed them. He’s been invited to Blanche’s birthday party, but he won’t show up (page 74).

Stanley has given her some extraordinary birthday gifts. He’s been most thoughtful to her.

Finally, he gets so furious with her holding up the bathroom and singing endlessly that he shouts at her to get out (page 75). She tries her best to hold herself together against his savagery. Still, she worries about what he’s told Stella about her.

XI: Scene Eight

Forty-five minutes later, the three of them are sitting at a dismal birthday dinner (page 76). Blanche is wearing an artificial smile, trying to hide her disappointment at Mitch’s absence.

She asks Stanley to tell them a joke, something to cheer them up without it being vulgar or indecent. In his disgust with her affectations about being the ‘high-class’ lady from Belle Reve, rather than the whore from the Flamingo, he says he knows no jokes “refined enough for [her] taste.” Therefore, Blanche will tell one…a joke that ends with “God damn…!” She’s as capable of rough language as he is (page 77).

When Stella gripes at him for his bad table manners and tells him to help her clear the table, he has another of his temper tantrums, throwing a plate to the floor. He refuses to let himself come anywhere near being dominated by her or Blanche.

He’s infuriated at being called a “Polack” by Blanche, and judged as “vulgar–greasy,” but he sees no injustice in his own dominance as a man over her and his wife. He twists the socialist meaning of Huey Long‘s “Every man a king” slogan, meant to indicate that all people should have access to the plenty that a king enjoys, and instead he uses it to mean that men should be the kings of their women. In this, we can see what I was saying above, that a lack of solidarity between the sexes, as well as between people of different ethnic groups, is bad for the working class.

Blanche is still worried that Stanley has told Stella some dirt he’s learned from Laurel. Stella denies hearing anything, but of course she’s heard plenty. Blanche wants to call Mitch’s home and find out why he hasn’t shown up for her birthday party. She’ll regret making the call (page 78).

Stanley has another ‘gift’ for Blanche: a ticket back to Laurel. She can hear the Varsouviana music. She runs off, coughing and gagging (page 81).

Stella reprimands Stanley for being so cruel to her sister, and he reminds Stella of how he’d pulled her down from the columns of Belle Reve, and she liked it. He’s now pulled Blanche down from those columns, too, and she hates it…therefore, he hates her.

Overwhelmed by stress, Stella is going to go into labour. He has to take her to the hospital.

XII: Scene Nine

Blanche is alone in the apartment again, and Mitch arrives, dressed in his work clothes. He has no more interest in playing the role of the gentleman for her, having confirmed what Stanley told him about her. His coldness to her, and her realization that she has lost him, just as she lost her husband, reminds her of the Varsouviana music she’d heard when he ran off and put a gun in his mouth (page 84).

Mitch doesn’t like how dark it is in the place. He wants to see her in the light, which of course she never wants to be seen in (page 86). She finds the dark comforting, something she can hide in. Just as it hides her age, the darkness also hides her sinful past–it is her Jungian Shadow.

He insists on seeing her in the light even to the point of tearing off the paper lantern from the light-bulb. He wants to see her “good and plain,” which causes her narcissistic injury, for she finds exposure to the light “insulting.”

He wants realism, but she wants “magic.” She wants to hide in romance, to be worshipped by a gentleman. She wants comforting illusions.

When he sees her in the light, he doesn’t mind that she’s older than he thought; but he’s heartbroken to know that she, of supposedly “old-fashioned” ideals, has serviced men in the Flamingo. He at first dismissed Stanley’s accusations as slander, but then he checked Stanley’s sources and he is no longer able to deny the truth about her (page 87).

Blanche tries her best to deny Mitch’s sources, claiming the stories of the men who knew of her promiscuity are slanders to get revenge on her for rejecting their advances, but Mitch won’t believe her. Knowing she can’t get him to sympathize with her, she ironically exaggerates her sin by claiming the hotel she stayed in was not called The Flamingo, but “The Tarantula,” where she supposedly brought all her victims (page 87).

Again, she tries to explain what drove her to promiscuity–the suicide of her husband, Allan, her hopes of finding a man’s protection but never getting it, and the slow fading away of her looks from aging. She still hopes she can win Mitch’s sympathy by appealing to his need for somebody, as she needs somebody, and noting how gentle he seems (page 88)…but all that matters to him is that she lied to him.

As all of this is being said, a Mexican woman outside can be heard saying, “Flowers, flowers, flowers for the dead” in Spanish…some ominous foreshadowing of Blanche’s fate, metaphorically speaking.

Blanche speaks of “blood-stained pillow slips” that need changing, symbolic of her promiscuity. She imagines that “a coloured girl [could] do it,” suggesting a projection of her sin, what makes Blanche “common,” onto blacks, onto common workers. Blanche would continue to use racial and class prejudice as an ego defence mechanism to protect her against judgement for her sins.

Still, not only does Mitch feel no sympathy for Blanche, but he also no longer feels any obligation to play the role of the gentleman for her (page 89). He takes it to the point of wanting sex from her, imagining that she’s owed it to him “all summer.”

As we can see, his gentleman routine is as much of a phony act as is her ladylike routine. So much in this play is illusion and pretense.

Since Mitch has his hands on her waist, and it’s clear that he doesn’t want to marry her, she has no intention of satisfying him like a ‘cheap’ woman. His intention is to have her whether she’ll consent or not…in other words, he’s prepared to rape her.

She screams “Fire! Fire! Fire!” to make him go away, since screaming fire is considered a much more effective way to get help against a rapist than yelling rape. When we consider what’s going to happen to Blanche in the next scene (just after the end of it, specifically), we can see that Mitch is actually a more moderate version of Stanley, or rather, that Stanley is representative of an extreme version of ‘gentlemen’ like Mitch.

XIII: Scene Ten

It’s later that same night. Blanche is dressed in her prettiest of dresses, wearing her rhinestone tiara, and in front of the dressing table mirror. Since Mitch left, she’s been drinking steadily. She imagines she has a number of “spectral admirers” around her (page 90).

As I said above, her loss of Mitch is a loss of the mirror of her grandiose self, one of the two poles that are holding her together. So the group of “spectral admirers” is there in a desperate attempt by her to avoid the psychological fragmentation that is her fate via Stanley.

She’s talking to these imagined admirers: she’s hallucinating their presence. She’s holding a hand mirror to look at herself more closely, the hand holding it trembling. The chasm between who she knows she really is and the Lacanian ideal-I she wants to see in the specular image must be so vast that she smashes the mirror down hard to crack the glass.

Stanley returns from the hospital, and he’s in an uncharacteristically good mood. He is even, for the moment, kind to Blanche. He’s happy because he’s soon to be a father and hoping for a son (page 92).

Blanche has hopes of her own, only hers are completely imaginary. Just as she’s been seeing make-believe admirers in the mirror, for the sake of her grandiose self, she’s also imagining that Mr. Shep Huntleigh, her personified ideal, will take her on a cruise of the Caribbean (page 91).

Only through an escape into fantasy can she hope to keep her bipolar self intact, with Shep at one pole (idealization), and the admirers in the mirror reflection at the other pole (grandiosity). Yet Stanley is about to smash both poles for her, to rid her of her illusions, and traumatize her so severely that her psychotic break from reality will be complete.

Still, though, for the moment, Stanley is being nice to her because of his good mood as an expectant father. He doesn’t believe a word she’s saying about a cruise with Shep, but he’s humouring her all the same, to keep the peace, hence his comment that the rhinestones on her tiara are “Tiffany diamonds” (page 91). In his humouring of her, we can see that he’s as capable of pretense as she is.

Though he’s trying to be generous with her to keep the mood pleasant, she doesn’t want to reciprocate (page 93). She’s annoyed at the continuing lack of privacy, and yearns for her “millionaire from Dallas” to restore it to her. In her swelling narcissism, she boasts of her inner beauty–“beauty of the mind and richness of the spirit and tenderness of the heart”–all of which can replace her fading physical beauty.

This boasting is causing Stanley’s patience to fade, especially when she speaks of “casting [her] pearls before swine!” (page 93) “Swine,” of course, refers not just to Stanley but also to his friend, Mitch, whom she now regards as no less common than Stanley. She lies that Mitch “returned…to beg [her] forgiveness,” which she wouldn’t give.

When Stanley reminds her about the telegram she supposedly got from Shep, and he sees she has briefly forgotten about it, he’s caught her in a lie (page 94). Now his anger comes back in full.

Stanley knows there is no Shep, and he knows that Mitch never came to her asking for forgiveness. It’s all only her “imagination…lies and conceit and tricks!” It was all narcissistic fantasy, which she’s been using to protect her bipolar self from psychological fragmentation.

He is disgusted with her phony charade, but he cannot see the pain she went through that brought her to this. He’s tearing down her fake performance, and he’s about to bring her to that state of fragmentation. But first, he’ll go into the bathroom to change into his pajamas.

Just as before, when she suggested to Stella that their escape from Stanley would be a call to Western Union to contact Shep (Scene Four, page 44), she’s at the phone, trying to do it again for real, to save herself from this beast (pages 94-95).

She hears noises from outside at night. She leaves the phone and, according to the stage directions, she goes to the kitchen. Outside, a drunkard is attacking a prostitute. This is obvious foreshadowing of what’s about to happen to her.

Stanley comes back from the bathroom, having changed into his pajamas, and he’s looking at her lewdly. Part of the problem of being labelled a ‘cheap’ or ‘easy’ woman is, of course, how she becomes prey for lecherous men. Mitch gave Blanche a try; now, Stanley wants to…only he’ll be much more insistent on it.

He hangs up the phone on her, and he’s standing in a place where he can stop her from getting away. She knows what that look in his eyes means, and she needs to protect herself, so she smashes a bottle and points the jagged end at him (page 96).

She tries to fight the good fight, “some rough-house,” but he overpowers her, of course. Now that they’re going to have “this date” (an interesting choice of words on Stanley’s part, reminding us of how her dating Mitch ended), he picks her up and takes her to the bed (page 97). She moans and yields to him in all hopelessness.

XIV: Scene Eleven

A few weeks later, Stella is home with the baby, and she’s packing Blanche’s things. Eunice also comes by.

Stanley is playing poker with Steve, Mitch, and Pablo again at the kitchen table. The atmosphere of this game is the same as the last one (page 98).

Pablo curses at Stanley in Spanish, making the latter call the former a “greaseball.” Once again, the use of ethnic slurs demonstrates the lack of solidarity among the working class.

Blanche has told Stella that Stanley raped her, but Stella refuses to believe it (page 99). Eunice agrees that Stella should never believe it, since she’d never be able to carry on with Stanley. This understanding brings us back to the theme of illusions that keep the pain away, that protect us from fragmentation.

Blanche has finished bathing and is ready to come out of the bathroom. She’s full of anxiety and insecurity, wondering if the coast is clear (i.e., no men to see her), and if she’s failed to rinse all of the soap out of her hair (page 100). Stella and Eunice try to comfort and humour her by telling her how good she looks.

Blanche is still hoping for Shep Huntleigh to call her and take her on that cruise. Again, Stella and Eunice are humouring her with this fantasy, knowing full well that it’s a psychiatrist who is about to take her away. Again, they have to keep her illusions intact, for reality will destroy her.

Blanche imagines she’s going to spend the rest of her life on the sea (page 102). She thinks she’ll die holding “the hand of some nice-looking ship’s doctor, a very young one…” How ironic that it’s actually going to be a doctor who takes her away…and not a young or handsome one.

The doctor and nurse, or matron, arrive at the door and ring the doorbell. Blanche, of course, is full of hope that it’s Shep who has come to her rescue. How disappointed she’ll be.

As Blanche looks in shock at these two unexpected and unwanted visitors, she can hear the Varsouviana again. This was the music she heard just before her husband’s suicide, which in turn led to the events that have been corroding her whole sense of self. She’s hearing the music again in her mind; it’s a trigger leading to her destruction.

She’s trying to escape from the two visitors, claiming she forgot something (page 104). The nurse goes in after her and calls out to her, her voice echoing in Blanche’s mind, a threatening echo that suggests a recurring pain, a returning trauma.

Stanley, impatient to get rid of her, asks if it’s the paper lantern she wants. He tears it off the light-bulb and gestures to give it to her. According to the stage directions, “She cries out as if the lantern was herself.” (page 105) Of course she’d see it that way: all that Blanche has been, to keep her sanity, is a covering-up of the light, a comforting dimness, her narcissistic False Self. Revealing the light’s brightness exposes her True Self and all the ugliness she perceives it to be.

This is her succumbing to psychological fragmentation.

As the nurse is restraining her, Mitch gets up and tries to hit Stanley for his cruelty to Blanche. Mitch would seem to have a modicum of gallantry after all. Stanley’s denial of guilt shows he’s as fake about his commonality as she is about hers.

It is the Doctor, however, whose gentlemanly act of removing his hat and greeting her, that calms her down, restoring her comforting illusions. Stanley’s raping of her means that he has put his filth and commonality inside her, something she cannot expel. For her, kindness comes from strangers, not from people close to her.

The 1951 film changed the ending by having Stella refuse to be with Stanley anymore, since the old Motion Picture Production Code would never tolerate his rape going unpunished. No divorce, of course, but no easy forgiveness of him, either. Among social conservatives, there can be no acceptance of such violence against women as rape, however much the law may allow guilty men to slip through its cracks.

Williams’s play, however, exposes the ugly side of society by granting no justice or satisfaction to the long-suffering marginalized: ‘fallen’ women, ‘degenerate’ gays, ‘mama’s boys,’ ‘Polacks,’ ‘Chinamen,’ and ‘greaseballs.’ Williams would not whitewash cruel reality.

XV: Conclusion

You see, the cruel irony of “depend[ing] on the kindness of strangers” is twofold for Blanche. On the one hand, those strangers who were ‘kind’ to her were the Johns who solicited prostitution from her in exchange for money so she could survive–in other words, total exploitation. On the other hand, those she’s known well have hurt her the most: her husband, whose suicide was an abandoning of her; Mitch, who abandoned her out of a refusal to forgive her for her shady past; Stanley, for obvious reasons; and even Stella, for refusing to believe her accusation of Stanley (her relationship to her oaf of a husband being more important to her than her loyalty to her sister), and for allowing Blanche to be taken to a mental institution, her final humiliation.

In a world of alienation, only strangers can be kind.

Tennessee Williams, A Streetcar Named Desire, London, Penguin Books, 1947

Analysis of ‘Commando’

I: Introduction

Commando is a 1985 action film directed by Mark L. Lester and written by Steven E. de Souza, after a story by Joseph Loeb III, Matthew Weisman, and de Souza. It stars Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rae Dawn Chong, with Alyssa Milano, Vernon Wells, Bill Duke, Dan Hedaya, James Olson, and David Patrick Kelly.

The music score, noted for its use of steel drums, was by James Horner, and the film ends with a song by The Power Station called “We Fight for Love,” when Michael Des Barres replaced Robert Palmer as lead singer.

Here‘s a link to quotes from the film.

Giving the film a rating of 67% based on reviews from 36 critics, Rotten Tomatoes aptly describes Commando in its consensus as having a “threadbare plot, outsized action, and endless one-liners.” In other words, it’s a crowd-pleaser with all the gratuitous violence, swearing, and cheesy puns that a movie-going philistine could ever want.

So, Dear Reader, you’re probably wondering why I’m wasting my energy with this Hollywood schlock. Well, apart from the fact that the philistine in me finds this mindless entertainment amusing (the nostalgic memories of watching it as a teen in the 1980s being a big part of that amusement), the flash and excitement that Commando delivers is a distraction from the political undertones that I feel should be discussed.

II: A Brief Digression, If You’ll Indulge Me, Please

As should be obvious to anyone watching the film with his or her brain turned on, Commando contributes to the mythology of the US as the great saviour of other countries from tyranny and despotism. I’m not saying this as if it were a great revelation to you, Dear Reader: I bring this up because I want to discuss the social effects of movies like this, and how they brainwash Westerners, Americans especially, into cheering for US/NATO imperialism.

I was trying to do such commentary on another film aptly starring right-leaning Schwarzenegger, Conan the Barbarian. The reader response to that analysis was mixed: while one positive responder understood my intentions, to alert people to the hypnotizing danger of passively accepting Hollywood action films as US imperialist and right-wing libertarian propaganda (an example of the kind of thing Michael Parenti analyzed in his book, Inventing Reality), two others blasted my Conan analysis for seemingly opposing reasons.

The first negative responder was a woman who went out of her way to be as insulting as possible, saying my analysis was ‘so superficial as to be silly,’ and that during the Reagan era, pretty much all movies reflected a right-wing ideology, so apparently there’s no insight to be gained from describing Conan the way I did. First of all, many 1980s movies did obviously reflect a right-wing stance, but many others didn’t–take They Live, for instance, as an anti-Reagan film. Secondly, only someone with a right-wing bias (as I suspect she has) would see no value in critiquing Conan‘s right-wing agenda, since a left-wing sympathy would see that value. I’d say it was her reading of what I wrote that was “superficial” and “silly”: I suspect she read only the first few paragraphs, snorted and called it ‘stupid!’, then jumped to conclusions and made her snarky comments without bothering to read any further.

The second commenter took the opposite view, seeing my discussion of a right-wing libertarian, anti-communist allegory in Conan as “the most half-baked review” of a movie that he’d ever read. Then he ‘corrected’ me by pointing out something I myself stated, however briefly, in my analysis: that the film is about determination in rising up against one’s obstacles (speaking of pointing out the obvious, hence my brevity in stating it). Never mind that I flooded the analysis with links to prove my point about the allegory (i.e., the director’s right-wing leanings as well as those of Schwarzenegger’s, a link stating that Nazi salutes were done on the set, etc.). And what I wrote wasn’t a review (my saying whether or not I liked the film), but an analysis, stated plainly in the title (a discussion of themes, symbolism, allegory, etc.). So, was I stating the absurdly obvious, or was I going off on some “half-baked” tangent? I’m not sure.

My point in bringing up the Conan analysis and its negative responses is to say that this one of Commando is one of many articles in which I’m not just saying what I like or dislike about a film. The film analyses are about relating the content of the films with either political issues (typically from a Marxist-Leninist viewpoint) or with psychoanalytic ones (usually Freudian and post-Freudian, but recently, more and more Jungian).

That kind of analysis is what I do here on this blog; so if that’s not your thing, please read no further (I gave just such a warning at the beginning of my Conan analysis, which as I explained above, went unheeded at least twice). If, however, you do like how I relate film, literature, and music to leftist politics and psychoanalysis, then by all means, read on, Dear Reader.

III: Some Rather Needless Killing

The film begins with three men assassinated, all former members of the unit of US Army Special Forces Colonel John Matrix (Schwarzenegger). The first victim is shot by two men posing as garbagemen; the second of these two killers, Cooke (Duke), then kills a car salesman by running him over right in the dealership with the car he’s supposedly interested in buying; and the third victim, Bennett (Wells), is supposedly blown up in a boat, though we later learn that his death has been faked.

Matrix, it seems, is next to be assassinated.

As it turns out, though, he isn’t to be killed, but rather to be forced to assassinate the president of a fictional Latin American country, Val Verde, this man being someone Matrix originally helped put in power there, having ousted Arius (Hedaya), a brutal dictator who wants to be reinstated. If Matrix doesn’t cooperate, Arius will have his men kill Matrix’s pre-teen daughter, Jenny (Milano), whom they’ve kidnapped.

Here’s my point: why were those two men killed at the beginning of the film, with Bennett’s death faked? Apparently, Arius’ men (including Bennett) mean to agitate General Franklin Kirby (Olson) and get him to go to Matrix’s home to warn him personally that he’s probably next to die, and in the process Kirby will unwittingly help the bad guys know where Matrix lives.

This is an absurd way to get to Matrix, whose address (somewhere in upstate California, in the mountains) is presumably private for his and Jenny’s protection. Would Kirby be stupid enough to go there personally, risking leading the assassins right to Matrix? Couldn’t the killers just find another way to find him (e.g., paying someone in the army a handsome sum to disclose the address, etc.)? Wouldn’t it be better to catch Matrix off guard in a surprise attack?

It’s obvious that the killings at the beginning were just an excuse to have excitement for its own sake, to lull the audience in, to make them passive recipients of more pro-US propaganda.

IV: Matrix and Jenny

Of course, Schwarzenegger as tough guy Matrix is supposed to personify how ‘indestructible’ the American empire is (an empire that, incidentally, failed to defeat North Korea, lost against Vietnam, and similarly left Afghanistan with its tail between its legs). The liberals, however, can’t have their big hero be just a cold-hearted killer; we have to see his sensitive side, so during the opening credits and before Jenny’s kidnapping, we see some father/daughter quality time between Matrix and her.

While they’re eating sandwiches at home, he makes a cliché joke about gender-bending Boy George. Then he refers to his life as a boy in East Germany, and how the communists said that rock ‘n’ roll is “subversive.” While communists back in the 1950s and 1960s were probably much more socially conservative (as were, obviously, at least half of Americans back then) than in recent years (a lessening of conservatism that can’t be reasonably be said of those half of all Americans!), we’re meant to deem this old judgement of the communists as an example of how ‘repressive‘ they were and are. Matrix’s later quip that “Maybe they were right” is meant to be flippant, yet it tells us which people still have the repressive attitude…still by the 1980s and since then. Putin may not be sympathetic to LGBT people, but he hasn’t been a communist in decades.

Now, we’ve acknowledged that Matrix is of German background (presumably to rationalize Austrian Schwarzenegger’s undeniable accent), yet his name sounds utterly English, since we don’t want our American hero to seem inordinately Teutonic (shouldn’t his name be more like ‘Johann Meetrichs’?).

Given the film’s obvious agenda to glorify Anglo/American/NATO imperialism as comprising the ‘good guys,’ as against anyone who would dare defy said imperialism (Arius et al), the idea of having a German-American hero fighting those defiant of that imperialism (who, in real life, tend to be left-wing) strongly suggests the enlisting of fascists, at least symbolically. Matrix would have defected from East Germany early on, and the real purpose of the Berlin Wall, or Anti-fascist Protection Wall, as the East Germans called it, was just that: to keep the West German fascists out (i.e., those ex-Nazis who, rather than be punished for their war crimes, were given cushy jobs to fight the ‘commies’), as well as to keep East Germany from losing needed skilled workers.

Matrix’s leaving of the socialist state would have stemmed from an ideological hatred of socialism. Germans who hate socialism have historically leaned towards fascism as a protection against Marxism. The capitalist class has always used fascism to protect themselves against left-wing revolution, as have the petite bourgeoisie. The film’s negative portrayal of Latin Americans reinforces the idea that there’s a Nazi racist undertone here, as there was in Conan, as I argued in my analysis of it (see link above).

So what we see in German-American Matrix is a personification of the continuum between liberalism and fascism. He’s the sensitive father, as I discussed above in his relationship with Jenny at the beginning of the film, but she can be seen as personifying his threatened class interests when she’s kidnapped, making him ruthless in his lawless, bloody, and murderous quest to get her back. The fact that she’s a sweet, helpless, and sympathetic girl shouldn’t deflect us from seeing that cynical reality. Her sweetness, taken from an allegorical perspective, is being used as propaganda to justify all of his killing. More on that later.

My point is that liberals, seeming progressive in their goals on the surface, will betray that progressive agenda in a heartbeat if their class interests are at stake, and that’s what’s represented in Matrix’s quick switch from sensitive father to unflinching killer, thief, destroyer of property, kidnapper (however briefly, of Cindy [Chong]), etc.

Stalin once said that “Social-Democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism.” (Note that social democracy is the furthest left of liberalism.) His words may, on the surface, seem extreme, but put in their proper historical perspective, they are clearly understood. He said them in 1924, just five years after the social-democratic Weimar Republic had used the right-wing Freikorps to crush the Spartacist Uprising‘s attempt at a communist revolution in Germany, murdering Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht. The Weimar Republic’s soft and ineffective rule would lead to great dissatisfaction on both the far left and far right, one thing would lead to another, and by the early 1930s, you-know-who would rise to power in Germany.

If the ‘far left’ of liberalism can lead to fascism, so can more ‘moderately left’ versions of it. We easily backslid from the welfare capitalism of the era of post-WWII economic prosperity to the ‘free market’ capitalism of the Reagan/Thatcher years, and thence to the far-right nightmare of recent decades, all thanks to the dissolution of the Soviet Union, which meant that a large welfare state was no longer needed to ward off the danger of proletarian revolution in the West. We’d reached ‘the end of history,’ and the ruling class no longer felt threatened by the working class.

That liberals today are supporting literal fascists in Ukraine and Israel should help you see the truth in Stalin’s words, Dear Reader.

V: Making Matrix Aid Arius’ Revolution

We never learn of Arius’ political ideology; we only know that he’s a brutal dictator, who’s “tortured and killed” those who have resisted him. But is he on the left, or the right?

He’s a Latin American, a former ruler of Val Verde, as I mentioned above. We know that Matrix helped overthrow Arius and put a new president, Velasquez, in power. Here’s the funny thing, though: the US army, CIA, etc. like putting brutal right-wing dictators in power in Latin America.

Indeed, the American government has a history of intervening in other countries’ political affairs, typically replacing democratically-elected heads of state with ones that further the capitalist/imperialist interests of the US/NATO countries. Examples include Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, Chile in 1973…and more recently, Ukraine in 2014, and Bolivia in 2019, as well as attempted coups in places like Venezuela. One should look into US support for Operation Condor, too.

Of course, the Western corporate media likes to portray these interventions as ‘triumphs of freedom and democracy,’ when actually they were anything but. So we shouldn’t be surprised to see the ousting of Arius and replacement of him by US-backed Velasquez in Commando as portrayed as a good thing. It’s all just part of the propaganda used to make the US look like the good guys, while men like Arius are vilified.

So the very idea of the American military, as represented by Matrix, as not wanting to help spearhead a coup and install a dictator is ludicrous. Pinochet was the Arius of Chile in the 1970s, responsible for the deaths and disappearances of thousands of dissident Chileans, including dropping some of them from helicopters. The CIA helped put Pinochet in power, a “scumbag” who “tortured and killed” many, yet I doubt that any in the US military would have applied Matrix’s words to Pinochet the way Matrix applied them to Arius.

So Matrix not wanting to overthrow a Latin American government and replacing it with that of a brutal right-wing dictator is sheer denial on the part of the propagandists making this film. Moviegoers who see this film, knowing little if anything about the true political state of affairs in the world, will just eat up this propaganda uncritically, absorbing it and imagining that what the film portrays more or less corresponds with what the US government’s role in world affairs really is: the ‘policemen’ of the world, fighting tyranny and oppression everywhere, rather than the cause of so much of it.

This is a dangerous message to send to Western audiences, reinforcing a myth of our supposed superiority, which in turn is used to justify more and more imperial conquests, killing more and more innocent people. This urge to impose ‘freedom and democracy’ has led to possibly a million Iraqi deaths, and the destruction of Libya, changing it from a prosperous nation that took care of its people to a failed state with a slave trade. The current wish to bring ‘freedom and democracy’ to Russia and China could lead to a very nuclear WWIII, killing everyone on the globe.

Since Commando was made in the mid-1980s, I wonder why the film didn’t portray Arius as a left-wing dictator, but just as a generic one. Surely portraying him as a ‘commie’ would have made for effective Cold War propaganda, wouldn’t it have? Perhaps they didn’t specify his ideology because they knew enough left-wing critics still existed in the 1980s to trash the film for being even more obvious right-wing propaganda than it was and is. Still, for the reasons I’ve given above, it makes more sense for Arius to have a left-wing, rather than right-wing, ideology, so we’ll just go with that, remembering that his vilification, as well as the dehumanizing of his troops, is all part of Commando‘s obvious right-wing agenda.

VI: The Female Factor

Getting Cindy, an off-duty flight attendant, to help Matrix without there being any sexual chemistry between these attractive male and female leads seems as if this film is an example of the emerging kind that is trying to show more respect to female characters (her firing a rocket launcher correctly…on the second try; her flying a seaplane, etc.), especially since she’s a POC. Still, there’s plenty of sexism against women to keep Commando far behind more recent action films, which are sure to include women kicking lots of ass.

Poor Cindy is frequently treated like a whore, even explicitly called one by predatory Sully (Kelly, whom you’ll recall clinking those bottles together at the climax of The Warriors), leaving her in a huff for not letting him have his way with her. Later, without asking for her consent, in Sully’s motel room and waiting for Cooke, Matrix opens her top to make her look easy, that is, having indeed let Sully have his way with her. Even a cop, who’s later helped apprehend Matrix for trying to rob an army surplus store, sees her in a car next the cops’ truck and assumes she’s a “hooker.”

Earlier, Sully–asshole that he is–jokes in the airport about having “a little more time with” kidnapped Jenny. At the end of the film, Matrix carries her on his shoulder as if this damsel-in-distress were a prize he’s won after killing everyone else.

But the crowning piece of sexism in the film is the gratuitous display of a woman’s large, shaking breasts in a motel room next to Sully’s during Matrix’s fight with Cooke. It’s a completely unnecessary moment of titillation mixed with humour, meant as one of many examples of Commando‘s use of visuals to dazzle and distract the viewer as he or she absorbs the pro-US propaganda without thinking.

(By the way, Ava Cadell, who played the woman in the motel scene, has since become a therapist with a doctorate from Newport University, California. She has written a number of books on sexuality, has done lectures, and given counseling to couples on personal issues. Here’s her website. As we can see, she’s risen far above doing mere cheesecake roles in schlocky Hollywood movies.)

VII: Rescuing Jenny

Rescuing a damsel in distress is more acceptable in the modern world, of course, if she’s a child. Our sympathy for her is what makes the wiping out of everyone else on the island where she’s being held hostage seem perfectly justified.

Commando, however, is just a movie. It isn’t reality. As a piece of American propaganda, it causes us to transfer our desensitizing of the brutal killing of all the dehumanized Latin American soldiers to the killing of any other people in the world, be they soldiers or civilians, who in any way stand between the US/NATO empire and the achievement of its goals.

Part of ensuring the audience’s desensitizing to the deaths of the soldiers is a showering of contempt on them and their worth. Bennett tells Arius that his “little pissant soldiers…are nothing.” This sort of devaluing of them makes it all the easier for the audience to watch them all die.

On the other side of the coin, Matrix’s killing of them all comes with nary a scratch on his body, for he personifies the invincibility of the American empire. Indeed, one of the particularly ludicrous aspects of Commando is how Matrix can single-handedly wipe out so many dozens of soldiers, and not even one of them can get a lucky shot and give him a significant wound, let alone kill him.

The tool shed scene, apart from showcasing gratuitous violence for the sheer fun of it, demonstrates that shaving off the top of a man’s head with a small buzzsaw blade thrown like a Frisbee (in the director’s cut, a second buzzsaw blade hits a guy in the neck), the stabbing of an axe into a soldier’s balls, and the hacking off of a man’s arm with a machete are not horrifying sights to see, but exciting ones.

The message given throughout the film is that, since Matrix can break one law after another with impunity to save Jenny, and since he personifies American military might, then the US government, military, and intelligence are free to disregard international law, UN Security Council Resolutions, etc., to achieve their objectives and maintain their global hegemony.

Let’s see how these issues translate into the politics of the real world. Israel, properly seen as an extension of Western imperialism into the Middle East, has been given carte blanche by the US government to kill and maim as many Gazans as they like. The rationalization?…to rescue a number of Israeli hostages taken by Hamas on October 7th of 2023, rather like the kidnapping of Jenny. Where all those killed in Commando are soldiers, most, if not almost all, of the Gazans being killed are innocent civilians, including women and children.

Israel has made incursions into the West Bank, and the detonating of pagers in Lebanon–as well as airstrikes on several buildings in Beirut–has killed and injured many there, too, though there’s a similar rationale…the need to wipe out Hezbollah. The UN has, by the way, acknowledged that the armed resistance of fighters like Hamas is legitimate against an occupying force like Israel, but to the Zionist apologist, Hamas and Hezbollah are ‘terrorists’ whom he or she would surely sneer at as “little pissant soldiers” who “are nothing.”

Elsewhere, the Nord Stream pipelines were blown up by the US, with the help of Norway–an act of ecoterrorism practically confessed to by the American government. Seymour Hersh, the acclaimed investigative journalist who exposed the My Lai Massacre back in 1968, found conclusive, detailed evidence of how this crime was committed, yet the mainstream, corporate, imperialist media absurdly blamed the attack on Russia. How predictable. The motive behind this terrorist act, apart from the usual Russophobia/anti-Putin agenda (their ‘unprovoked’ invasion of Ukraine), was to stop Germany from buying cheap Russian oil and forcing the country to buy American oil.

Needless to say, the US government hasn’t been punished, nor will be, for this crime any more than Israel will be for her crimes against humanity. We, the general public, shrug these crimes off, or at least are expected to, just as we do the excesses of Matrix’s violence, all to rescue one little girl, who personifies his threatened class interests as I said above, and who is carried on his shoulder at the film’s end as a kind of trophy.

When Kirby, who has arrived with his army at that time, asks Matrix what he’s left for them, he callously says, “Just bodies.” Matrix then refuses to resume working for Kirby as a soldier, wanting instead to be the nice, sensitive father to Jenny; but as with any liberal, being the nice guy comes only when one’s class interests (symbolic ones in Matrix’s case) aren’t being threatened.

VIII: Confession, Projection, and Denial

In a conversation with Cindy in Sully’s car on the way to the motel to confront Cooke, Matrix explains why he has to rescue Jenny. In the process, he goes into a kind of confession of guilt, not only about how he, constantly on assignment as a Special Forces man somewhere on the other side of the world (Laos, Angola, Lebanon, Pakistan, etc.), has never had time to be with Jenny, but also about how he did “things you don’t want to know about,” and which he wishes he didn’t know he’d done.

Bennett, we learn, was kicked out of Matrix’s unit for being excessively violent (and this is why he, wanting to get revenge on Matrix for his expulsion, is willing to help Arius “for nothing,” to get a chance to get at Matrix). Yet given what we know Matrix has implied in his confession to Cindy, and what we know of his brutal killing of so many in this film…including his killing of Bennett, to get him to “let off some steam,” it’s hard to imagine Bennett being all that much more violent.

It should be obvious that, Matrix representing American militarism and seeing Bennett and Arius as far worse than he, the film’s pro-US propaganda tries to excuse American violence by projecting it out to other countries. Bennett, significantly, is Australian–just listen to his accent. Arius is Latin American. These latter two are so awful, apparently, that Matrix, and therefore the US, can’t be all that bad.

So in giving his brief confession, implying the awful things he’s done, while projecting far worse guilt onto people from other countries, Matrix–in spite of his constant violence and lawlessness, like that of the US, as I’ve explained above–can still be regarded as the liberal ‘good guy,’ as politicians like the Clintons, Obama, Biden, and Harris can be seen. One can safely deny being as bad as the antagonists are, and the protagonists’ guilt will be ignored and forgotten about by moviegoing lovers of action films.

Another thing that will be ignored and forgotten in Commando is the political ideology that Arius must have, as is typical of any Latin American head of state that opposes American imperial hegemony and ends up being ousted in a coup d’état. Such an ideology is glossed over and disregarded: all we know is that Arius believes the people of Val Verde need “an understanding of discipline,” which sounds unsettling coming from a generic ‘dictator,’ whom many in the audience would imagine to be a left-wing one, as I’m assuming Arius is.

Now, Marxism-Leninism does have an understanding of party discipline, but it isn’t anything brutal, as Arius is implying in Commando‘s propagandistic script. It’s about organizing the working class to rise up in revolution and defeat the ruling class, thus liberating the people from oppression, not subjecting them to oppression, the latter of which is what US puppets like Pinochet did to their people. As for how “extremist” a left-wing political ideology is, just read the <<<link. You won’t know the truth of the matter by watching Arius’ caricature of it.

IX: Conclusion

I hope, Dear Reader, that if you’ve read this far, that you understand my intentions in writing this analysis of Commando. I know it’s no Earth-shattering revelation that the film has a right-wing agenda: my purpose is to explore the political ramifications and social effects of said agenda, to warn of its dangers on a public not aware of how consent is manufactured for war and its atrocities.

The ‘tangents’ I went off on in elucidating these political and social implications, far from being “half-baked,” are the whole point of the article. People need to be conscious of the political wool being pulled over their eyes, not to be told, “Oh, come on, it’s just a movie. Lighten up!”

Analysis of Anton Webern’s ‘Zwei Lieder,’ Op. 19

I: Introduction

“Zwei Lieder,” or “Two Songs,” op. 19, is a short piece for mixed choir and five instruments by Anton Webern, set to two poems by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. It was composed in 1925-1926; the five instruments are celesta, guitar, violin, clarinet, and bass clarinet, with a choir of sopranos, altos, tenors, and basses.

Webern, along with Alban Berg (who composed the opera Wozzeck), was one of the most famous pupils of Arnold Schoenberg (who composed Pierrot Lunaire), these three composers being the most famous members of the Second Viennese School, who used Schoenberg’s twelve-note compositional technique. This technique involves taking the twelve semitones and rearranging them in any order to produce a tone row, or basic set. This tone row becomes the thematic, melodic, and harmonic basis of a composition.

Because the twelve-note system eschews the major-minor system, the resulting music is atonal, and therefore it is an acquired taste, to put it mildly. One must get used to the ’emancipation of the dissonance,’ which is no longer required to be resolved quickly back to consonance, and so the music sounds ‘harsh’ to the uninitiated listener.

When it comes to Webern’s music, I usually prefer to listen to his instrumental works, such as the Symphony, op. 21 (1927-1928), the Five Movements for String Quartet, op. 5 (1909), the Piano Quintet (1907), the Concerto for Nine Instruments, op. 24 (1931-1934), and the Quartet, op. 22 (1928-1930), for clarinet, tenor saxophone, violin, and piano. However, since when it comes to my doing analyses of music here on my blog, I prefer to have programmatic content along with the music, I’ve chosen a Webern composition with a text, among his music that I don’t listen to all that often.

Therefore, I’ve chosen to analyze his “Zwei Lieder,” among his least-performed, and therefore least-known, compositions. The reason that this otherwise superb piece of music is so rarely performed is that Webern’s choice of instrumentation is, sadly, impractical from the point of view of setting up performances of it. A choir, combined with the odd assembly of five instruments I mentioned above, all to perform a piece that lasts about two minutes, will be too much trouble for most organizers of concerts to put together.

Such a piece is best performed as a recording, and here is a link to a recording of the piece. Here is a link to the first poem in the original German and in English translation (which I will not be quoting here!); and here is a link to the second poem in the original German and in French translation (which I wouldn’t be quoting here even if I had permission to!).

The text of the two poems, in the original German as well as in English and French translations, can be found also in the booklet (pages 142-143) for the Complete Works of Webern, Opp. 1-31, conducted by Pierre Boulez for Sony Classical. I’ll be using these texts as the basis of my interpretation of the poetry; the websites linked in the previous paragraph are just there for your information, Dear Reader.

II: The Music

The tone row that Webern uses for the setting of both poems is G, B-flat, F-sharp, F-natural, E-flat, A, G-sharp, C-sharp, D, B-natural, E-natural, and C-natural. The “Zwei Lieder,” op. 19, is Webern’s first work to use the same tone row all the way through the entire composition.

A tone row can be played out in four ways: the original order, inversion (upside-down), retrograde (backwards), and retrograde-inversion (both backwards and upside-down). Furthermore, the tone row can be transposed to any key other than the original set of pitches. In the case of the “Zwei Lieder,” Webern transposes the tone row by a tritone, the diabolus in musica.

Now, as Samuel Andreyev demonstrates in his musical analysis of Webern’s piece (and my analysis owes a great debt to Andreyev’s analysis of the piece), one would find it impossible to hear the tone row played out in a clear, linear fashion because Webern breaks up the tone row among the instruments and choir in a way that the ear could never follow, certainly not without reading the score as one is listening.

For a precise demonstration of how the tone row is manifested in the piece, I’ll leave that to Andreyev to explain, since I lack his technical expertise. Instead, I’ll just make some more general remarks about the music.

Instead of the traditional kind of melody, which flows and is linear, having a singing quality, Webern’s concise musical style tends toward punctualism–an isolating of the successive notes through wide leaps, unorthodox uses of duration, dynamics, and attacks that are divorced from conventional ‘expressivity’–and Klangfarbenmelodie, or an assigning of the successive notes of a melody to different instruments. Therefore, melody isn’t perceived as musical lines, but rather as musical ‘dots,’ if you will.

Because of these kinds of innovations in Webern’s music, he has been associated, in retrospect, with the postwar total serialism of composers like Boulez (i.e., his Le Marteau Sans Maître) and Karlheinz Stockhausen (i.e., his Gesang der Jünglinge). Webern’s puncualism and Klangfarbenmelodie have been seen as anticipating the 1950s serializing of not only pitch, but also all the musical parameters as listed in the previous paragraph.

III: The Text

Goethe’s poems are both sets of two four-line verses in trochaic tetrameter (a line has four feet, each of which has a stressed, then unstressed, syllable), with a rhyme scheme of ABAB CDCD. They are vignettes of the beauty of nature, of flowers in bloom or soon to be in bloom. Images or scenes of natural beauty were something Webern always loved, and I understand that even among his instrumental works, there was the inspiration of nature.

His choice of having a mixed choir sing these verses–as opposed to, say, having just one singer–what must have been the main factor in causing the logistical difficulties in having op. 19 performed, must have been of such insistent importance to him, overruling the practical problems that would have forbidden frequent performances of the piece. I’m guessing that the choral singing was meant to give the verses a sense of holiness. For Webern, nature is sacred.

These poems are inspired by Chinese literature; in fact, these two poems are part of a cycle Goethe composed, called Chinesisch-deutsche Jahres- und Tageszeiten (“Chinese-German Seasons and Times of Day”). Chinese literature, all things Chinese, actually, had been quite popular in Europe at the time of his writing, ever since Voltaire‘s time.

The first poem describes narcissus flowers blooming in a garden in rows. The first verse gives us a vivid sense not just of the flowers’ beauty, but also of their ‘innocence,’ ‘purity,’ and ‘modesty.’ Since when is a narcissus modest, I wonder?

Indeed, one thing to keep in mind when interpreting poetry, or literature in general, is that things often aren’t as they seem. We may be reading a beautiful description of nature, but what the imagery is meant to represent may not be all that beautiful…once we have looked beneath the surface.

The narcissus flowers are as white as lilies; they have the purity of candles. Candles may give light, which is inherently a good thing, but the light comes from fire, the fire of the passions, which are anything but pure. Goethe’s word for pure is reine, the same word Heinrich Heine used in “Du bist wie eine Blume” (“You are like a flower”), “So hold und schön und rein” (“So lovely, fair, and pure”), a poem about a woman whose ‘purity’ broke Heine’s heart. ‘Purity’ isn’t necessarily a good thing.

Goethe would have been perfectly aware of the Echo and Narcissus myth, in which the latter broke the former’s heart, and the latter was punished for his vanity by being made to fall in love with the image of his own reflection in a pond, meaning that the handsome youth, in a sense, broke his own heart. In his grief over never being able to have what he saw, Narcissus died and turned into the flower of Goethe’s poem.

Now, obviously neither Webern nor especially Goethe would have known anything about narcissism in the modern psychiatric sense that people today would know of it. The seeds of the personality type, however–the vanity, haughtiness, and pitiless rejection of others–would have been intuited in the mythic character of Narcissus, intuited especially by a poet of Goethe’s stature. So on at least an unconscious level, Goethe must have used the flower as a symbol of sinful pride; Webern must have picked up on this idea–again, at least unconsciously, and reflected it somehow in his music.

Similarly, while Webern would never have consciously thought of the music he’d arranged for the poems as ‘harsh,’ he certainly knew, from the conservative public’s reaction to his atonal works (and those of his modernist contemporaries, like Schoenberg and Berg), that they were perceived that way. And even though his “Zwei Lieder” use softer sonorities, their atonality, dissonance, and wide melodic leaps are all clear signs of musical tension, deliberately used. Therefore this tension, set to these poems, suggests a sensitivity in his mind to Goethe’s expression of an undercurrent of tension in otherwise surface idyllic verses.

Now, I’m about to do a kind of ‘retrospective’ interpretation of these verses, applying a modern meaning to writing that’s showed no knowledge of contemporary ideas. Some of my readers, such as one who commented on my analysis of the Echo and Narcissus myth (link above), would balk at my ‘projecting of modern ways of seeing’ onto old texts, insisting instead that whatever the original meaning there was of the old text is the only ‘correct’ way of thinking about it.

I beg to differ. Just because the writing is old doesn’t mean the interpretation has to be old. The arts are not STEM fields: they don’t have only one correct answer, like 2 + 2 = 4, and an infinitude of incorrect answers. Artists often are reticent about what they’ve created because they want to allow us to find our own meaning in their works. Insisting that the work means only what the artist had originally intended takes all the fun and joy out of experiencing the work.

Another justification I have for interpreting the meaning of a work of literature, film, or piece of music, drawing on elements that came into being long after the work was created, is to give the work a new meaning and relevance for us now, so we can relate to it in our own way and therefore enjoy it far more. Insisting that the work’s ‘ancient meaning’ is its only meaning makes the work dead to us now.

Besides, some themes and ideas are so universal that they apply to all times of history, including those times when people knew nothing of the modern concepts. Just because narcissism wasn’t known as a personality disorder in, for example, ancient Greece, doesn’t mean that narcissists didn’t exist back then, let alone cause pain and suffering to the Echoes of their day.

With this understanding in mind, I can begin to do my interpretation of these verses. We should also keep in mind when Webern set the poems to music: in the mid-1920s, when certain…politically tempestuous…things were going on in Europe, in Germany and Austria in particular. As of the piece’s composition, Hitler would have been released from prison after having served just over eight months of his sentence for the crime of high treason after the failed Beer Hall Putsch. The Nazi Party may not have achieved their immediate goal of taking over the German government, but they did gain national attention and their first propaganda victory, which surely would have gotten Webern’s attention.

As an Austrian patriot, Webern did, for a while at least, have some sympathy for Nazism. By the time the Nazis had come to power in the early 1930s, though, he was growing in opposition to them. He even gave a public speech in 1933, publicly denouncing the Nazis for calling his music, as well as that of Schoenberg and Berg, “cultural Bolshevism” and “degenerate music.” (He was lucky the Nazis didn’t arrest him for this.)

He was certainly never an antisemite. His musical mentor, Schoenberg, was a Jew. He resigned from a position as chorus master for the Mödling Men’s Choral Society in 1926 (the year he finished his “Zwei Lieder”) over his controversial hiring of a Jewish singer, Greta Wilheim, to replace a sick one. So his attitude towards Nazism was complicated.

I’ll now relate these political issues to how I imagine Webern could have read Goethe’s poems. To think that Goethe would have intended the interpretation I’m about to make would be absurd, and I admit I’m stretching things when I make speculations about Webern interpreting them in the way I’m about to describe. But in making this interpretation, I’m hoping not only to make the poems relevant for our time, but also to show that there’s more to them than just a pretty painting of nature in words–there’s a deeper meaning.

These narcissus flowers, white and pure, like stars, are as pretty as lilies. They bow with a modest demeanour. Since, as I noted above, the associations one makes of this flower with vain Narcissus are so obvious, then the flowers appearing so modest must be mere affectation on their part.

The white flowers have a yellow centre with a red rim circling it, glowing love, as the first verse points out. This red around the yellow middle is thus the loving heart of the flowers. This love, affection, and affinity of the flowers is thus a personifying of them…and an idealizing of them.

This idealizing of the narcissus flowers is significant, for as is associated with such flowers, narcissism is all about an idealizing of the self. As is indicated in the second verse, these early narcissus flowers have bloomed in the garden in rows. They are a group symbolizing beautiful and idealized, but also vain, self-important people. They are thus representative of group narcissism.

Now Freud, who discussed how groups of people living in the same community may look down on those outside their circle with contempt, was writing about this issue as an example of group psychology in 1922, which was just a few years before Webern composed his “Zwei Lieder.” I’m not suggesting that Webern read Freud’s work and was influenced by it in setting the poems to music. What I am saying is that we’ve all–at any point in history, even back to Goethe and earlier–sensed the arrogance of the in-group toward outsiders. Parochial, chauvinistic attitudes have existed since time immemorial.

So, is Webern’s choral setting of the poems meant to suggest a holy beauty in these flowers, or a ‘holier-than-thou’ attitude? Webern surely would have been aware of the hyperinflation of Germany in the early 1920s and its effect on the German psyche. This pain is the kind of thing that can drive people to have nationalistic feelings, to looking for a leader who will ‘save the nation’ from its ruin. As we know, some Germans looked to Hitler in the hopes of such a saviour.

I suspect that Webern could have read such a meaning in the poem’s hope that the narcissus flowers know for whom they’re waiting. As they stand in their rows waiting for their idealized leader, they are described in the original German as “so spaliert erwarten,” or “so trellised in expectation.” They’re being held up, as if by a trellis, which implies that they’re “stand[ing] at attention,” as the translation in my CD booklet (page 143) has it.

Narcissism involves an idealizing of another–an idealized parental imago who may mirror back one’s grandiosity, as Heinz Hohut described the relationship, or an idealized political figure–who reflects back one’s own narcissism. This is the true meaning of Narcissus falling in love with his reflection in the pond: the ideal is oneself, yet it’s also out there, another, as Lacan spoke of the ideal-I in the mirror stage. One sees oneself in the idealized other, and hopes to attain that ideal oneself.

So the narcissus flowers, standing at attention in their neatly-arrayed rows in the garden…a kind of Garden of Eden in its idealization?…are like the SA standing at attention before Hitler, whom they wait for, in hopeful expectation, ‘to save’ their nation, while looking down with scorn and contempt for foreign nations and other ethnic groups.

Webern could have made these associations in his mind–consciously or unconsciously–as he read Goethe’s poem, and written the music the way he did in accordance with such a meaning–with the dissonance, atonality, and wide melodic leaps to express his own inner conflicts (should he, in his Austrian patriotism, support fascism, or oppose its antisemitism and rejection of his art?) about the political direction he saw Europe going in at the time.

As for Goethe’s intention, he could have imagined the narcissus flowers standing in an orderly group awaiting a leader of a more general sort, but one who has the same demagogic qualities. This ‘follow the leader’ mentality has always existed, of course, so his poem has a universal relatability in this regard.

Now, the second poem describes sheep leaving a meadow, revealing a pure green of grass. There’s that word, “reines,” or “pure” again: recall what I said above about both the positive and negative feelings that can come from the use of this word.

So, who are the sheep? Are they those who are timid and easily led, as the word is commonly used today to describe people who blindly believe all the nonsense in the mainstream media and follow mainstream politics uncritically? Such a meaning could be too contemporary and too English to be fitting in a reading of such an old, German poem.

Or are the sheep the followers of the Church? Certainly Goethe, as a freethinker, wasn’t fond of the more dogmatic aspects of the Church, and so he probably wouldn’t have thought much of the simple-minded, unthinking flock. The sheep’s leaving the meadow, to reveal the purity of the green, could be indicating an improved world once we’ve been rid of the uncritical believers.

Or are the sheep those who truly abide by the spirit of what it means to be a Christian, as opposed to the mere conformist churchgoers? Not those who say “Lord, Lord,” but those who do good works without regard of reward (Matthew 7:21)? Their leaving the meadow could reveal a grass whose purity is of a more ironic sort.

In any case, the sheep’s absence will result in the glorious blooming of the flowers. This blooming is described as a “paradise” (recall my reference to the Garden of Eden in its idealization). Again, is Webern’s use of a choir to sing these verses in earnest, or is it ironic? And whichever answer may be correct, for which is it in earnest, and for which is it ironic…for the sheep, or for the paradise?

Note that there are parallel themes going on in both poems. There’s an idealizing of the beauty of the flowers, with an ironic undercurrent. By the end of each second verse, there’s a hope or expectation of good which may end up being its opposite.

Hope, in the second verse, spreads a light mist in front of us, implying that what we see is no longer clear because of that hope. What will be true and what we want to be true are often very different from each other.

Similarly, a parting of the clouds should give us clear, sunny skies (‘the fire of the sun’), and therefore clear vision. Just as one hopes that the leader the narcissus flowers are waiting for will be a good one, so does one hope that one’s unobstructed vision will reveal happiness and the fulfillment of one’s wishes.

IV: Conclusion

Among all of the German and Austrian nationalists, like Webern, there was a growing feeling that fascism might fulfill their wishes and give them happiness by restoring glory to their countries. While he felt that national pride and hoped that leaders like Hitler would fulfill those wishes, his continued friendship with Jews, going all the way to the Anschluss and beyond, would have been a source of great conflict for him, not to mention a potential danger.

He surely would have felt that conflict as early as the mid-1920s, when he composed the “Zwei Lieder,” for Hitler had made no secret of his antisemitism, of course, just as he was putting his nationalism on broad display. I believe the second poem’s expression of hope as a mist obscuring one’s vision put Webern’s conflict into words.

Similarly, as I said above, the atonality, dissonance, and wide melodic leaps at least unconsciously expressed his psychological conflict about the growth of European fascism in the 1920s. This musical expression of that conflict extends to the transposition of the tone row by the tritone interval…known significantly as the ‘devil in music.’

So Goethe’s poems teach us that we need to be careful as we look through the mists of hope, as well as to know who we are waiting for. Will we get that happiness, or will we get horror? Are we waiting for a hero, or a villain? In Webern’s case, he got shot and killed by an American soldier in the end, after having been disillusioned by fascism’s bloody failure. Be careful what you hope for…and for whom you are waiting.