The NYU Dept of Comparative Literature, NYU Tisch School of the Arts, Cooper Union Irwin S. Chanin School of Architecture, and NYU Dept of Media, Culture & Communication are pleased to present a public lecture by internationally renowned South African artist William Kentridge tomorrow night, February 9th at 8 p.m. at Cooper Union’s Great Hall (7 E. 7th Street at Bowery). The talk is free and open to the public. Photo ID is required for entry.

Kentridge’s talk “A Universal Archive … with Some Remarks on Black Holes” will explore visual memory, the need for dis-remembering, studies in the speed of light, and other topics and themes at the edges of the artist’s work.

William Kentridge is known for his stop-motion films of charcoal drawings as well as for works in etching, collage, sculpture, and the performing arts. An exhibition of three decades of Kentridge’s works will be at New York’s Museum of Modern Art (Feb. 24-May 17) later this year.

In March, Kentridge will direct a production of Dmitri Shostakovich’s opera The Nose at the Metropolitan Opera House. The production features Paulo Szot, who won a Tony Award last year for his performance in South Pacific at Lincoln Center. (Click here to watch a video about the Met’s production featuring an interview with Kentridge.)

Bookmark and Share

Losing the Fun

Freelance journliast David Freeland, one of the keynote speakers at last fall’s Lost New York conference and the author most recently of Automats, Taxi Dances, and Vaudeville: Excavating Manhattan’s Lost Places of Leisure, is taking part in a panel discussion this Wednesday evening February 10 entitled “The Vanishing City: Losing the Fun.” He’ll be joined by architectural historian Andrew Dolkart, author of The Row House Reborn: Architecture and Neighborhoods in New York City, 1908–1929; vaudeville performer and historian Trav S. D., author of No Applause–Just Throw Money: The Book That Made Vaudeville Famous; and Cindy VandenBosch, co-founder of the New York walking tour company Urban Oyster. They’ll be talking about why it’s important to preserve New York’s historic entertainnent venues and whether that project is economically feasible in these difficult times.

The panel takes place at the Dixon Place Theater (161 Chyristie Street, between Delancey and Rivington). The lounge opens at 7:30, and the panel begins at 8:00 p.m. Admission is $10. Call 212.219.0736 for reservations or go to www.dixonplace.org.

Previously. And.

Bookmark and Share

Things happening on the Web or IRT outside my neighborhood.

The Jane Jacobs of Gowanus [Found in Brooklyn]

The passing of a Harlem-born Tuskegee Airman [Harlem Bespoke]

Feeling hopeful at Staten Island’s Snug Harbor Cultural Center [snug-harbor.org]

Following Idiotarod 2010 from BK to Queens [Gothamist]

Coming-of-age clichés: Bronx edition [NYTimes]

Photo credit: An ephemeral scene on the Wmsburg Bridge, via Restless

Bookmark and Share

Tags: , , , ,

Did I call this one in lecture the other day or what? This week’s New York Magazine contains the late-breaking news that — imagine! — plaid flannel shirts are back. (Thank God they’re fitted this time around, is all I have to say: if this really were a 90s grunge revival we’d all be back to wearing things two sizes too large, and NOBODY wants that.)

Earlier this semester I suggested that the proliferation of red flannel, lumberjack boots, and beards among urban hipsters is a 21st-century version of the cowboy craze that took over the East Village in the late 1960s. Back then, the whole Lower East Side was the frontier. Now Brooklyn’s Alaska, apparently. None of this is all that new: the indie rockers have been sporting big old beards for years now. My Melvillean beard done came and went a long time ago.

Of course, whenever I hear someone talking about fashion-forward urbanites in red flannel it puts me in mind of Bowery B’hoys like Mose, above left. The New York Magazine feature made me wonder: Was the Mose get-up self-consciously mimicking the costume of the California miner 49ers? Or were the red shirts standard fireman issue? Anyone have a better origin story for Mose’s suspenders and red flannel work shirts?

Bookmark and Share

Tags: , , ,

WNY Bartleby

In preparation for Monday’s lecture on Herman Melville’s short story “Bartleby, the Scrivener: A Tale of Wall Street,” we’re showing Jonathan Parker’s film adaptation Bartleby (2001) this Friday evening to our students. The film stars Crispin Glover as the title character, who comes to work not in a law office but in a public records firm headed up by a character listed in the credits as “The Boss” (David Paymer). One of the clerks is transformed into “Vivian,” the office manager (played by Glenne Headly), while the others are named “Rocky” (Joe Piscopo) and “Ernie” (Maury Chaykin).

Despite these changes, the short story’s signature phrase — “I would prefer not to” — remains prominently featured.

New York Times reviewer A. O. Scott writes that “Mr. Parker has brilliantly updated his source and grasped its essence, composing a sorrowful and hilarious tone poem about alienated labor, or an absurdist workplace sitcom, as if a team of French surrealists had been put in charge of ‘The Drew Carey Show.’” We’re hoping our students will agree.

Previously.

Bookmark and Share

I wound up today’s lecture on the varieties of 19th-century NYC theater with a long quote from one critic’s recollection of the opening of A Glance at New York, the play that made Mose the Bowery B’hoy a household name, made b’hoy red-flannel fashion an instant craze, and launched Mose’s career in American folklore. The account of opening night comes from William Knight Northall’s Before and Behind the Curtain (1851), a theater history of the preceding 15 years, published only three years after Glance’s debut and two years after the notorious riots at the Astor Place Opera House. Northall recalls A Glance at New York’s impact on the venue in which it premiered, the Olympic Theater, and on New York’s theater scene in general:

For four months did this unmitigated conglomeration of vulgarity and illiteracy keep the stage … The theatre was crowded from pit to dome nightly, and the hi-hi’s of the pit testified how happy they were to see a congenial vulgarity thrust under the nostrils of a better class of people. It would be scarcely fair to judge of a person’s taste, simply because they spent an evening in witnessing the rowdyism of Mose. The piece was the town talk, and few could resist the inclination to go and see for themselves what had produced such an extraordinary excitement all around them. …

The house was filled with a constant succession of strangers, for we venture to assert that no man with any pretension to good taste, with any love for the stage, or any desire to see it fulfil its proper uses, would ever go there twice, and sit through the abomination the second time. When the public curiosity had been somewhat satisfied … the boxes no longer shone with the elite of the city; the character of the audiences was entirely changed, and Mose, instead of appearing on stage, was in the pit, the boxes, and the gallery. It was all Mose, and the respectability of the house mosed too.

Northall’s account differs slightly from the apocryphal but widely circulated story of Mose’s first appearance on the stage, in which an audience of rapt workingmen break into uproarious approbation on seeing one of their own stride on stage. Instead, he offers a story of a Bowery audience’s take-over of a respectable theater. Bowery audiences had already controlled their own theater spaces — most notably the Bowery Theater itself — for more than a decade. Though city officials hoped the Bowery Theater would help gentrify the neighborhood and provide civilizing social uplift for poorer patrons, they misjudged, and working-class audiences made that space their own, to the dismay of some officials and elite onlookers.

The growing class divisions to which Northall nods weren’t merely confined to theater spaces. Class-based riots erupted throughout the 1830s and 40s. But the theater became a special site for wearing your class politics on your sleeve: literally, in the sense of fashion and taste. B’hoys soaped their locks and dressed like Mose, promenading on the Bowery; the genteel set daintily applauded the construction of the Astor Place Opera House (pictured), a new spot for refined entertainment, built at the head of Lafayette, a street created expressly for the purposes of exclusive real estate. (The new street also bisected an old entertainment spot, Vauxhall Gardens, where Glance at New York concludes.)

In spite of the rosy cross-class friendships at the end of Glance, the class tensions in these plays—and the competing styles of masculine behavior among audiences—would culminate in one of the most famous episodes in New York theater history: the Astor Place riots of May 1849, only a year after Glance premiered at the Olympic and three after Fashion played to friendly audiences at the genteel Park.

The riots, which have been written about by dozens of historians (most recently Nigel Cliff, whose book I haven’t yet managed to read) were the culmination of an ongoing rivalry between two leading Shakespearean actors. William Charles Macready was an Englishman, Edwin Forrest an American. The two had different acting styles that appealed to different audiences. Macready was refined, aristocratic, and appealed to wealthy, genteel New Yorkers: the Park set. Forrest typified the Bowery style: rough, forceful, and patriotic. He was something of a teen idol for the Bowery B’hoys. Philip Hone—the mayor who had dedicated the Bowery in 1826—considered Forrest “a vulgar, arrogant loafer, with a pack of kindred rowdies at his heels.”

The two actors had a longstanding feud. Forrest had toured England to poor reviews, which he blamed on Macready. He struck back by hissing Macready during a performance of Hamlet. British newspapers came down hard on Forrest, who defended himself, in true Bowery fashion, by asserting his right as an audience member to express his dramatic criticism on the spot.

In May 1849, the two actors performed in New York in competing performances of Macbeth. Forrest took a dig at Macready by emphasizing Macbeth’s line, “What purgative drug will scour these English hence?” This led to several minutes of sustained applause from his audience. The same night, Macready performed at the two-year-old Astor Place Opera House, whose dress code included white kid gloves for gentlemen, a detail that particularly pissed off the b’hoys. Forrest’s friends and fans still managed to infiltrate the opera house and showered Macready with vegetables, glass bottles, and chairs during his performance. The pit and gallery from one house, in essence, had taken over another that belonged to a higher class. In other words, the whole city had become a theater like the one Irving’s Jonathan Oldstyle had portrayed earlier in the century.

At his next performance, nearly 15,000 people gathered outside the Opera House, most of them spectators. Inside, the crowd again showered Macready with eggs and tomatoes. Outside, the crowd began to throw bricks through windows and tried to break down the theater doors, which had been barricaded. The militia fired into the crowd, killing over 20 and wounding over 100 others. It was the first time American militia had fired on American citizens.

86 people were arrested. They were primarily workingmen, many of them butchers, like Mose. The papers picked up on the class politics and framed the event as stemming from working class resentment against “aristocratizing the pit.” The episode allows us to see how theater politics were one manifestation of larger public issues, and how they fed into larger public issues as well.

More on the response to the riots by writers including Irving and Melville sometime next week.

My quick account of the riots here is cobbled from a lot of sources: the longstanding classic is Richard Moody’s The Astor Place Riot (1958). Philip Hone’s account, quoted above, is reprinted in Phillip Lopate’s anthology Writing New York. The title of this post comes from Walt Whitman’s recollections of the Bowery Theater in “The Old Bowery” (1892).

Bookmark and Share

Tags: , , , , ,

Speed on the Grid

Last week in Writing New York, we started talking about the grid plan and the effects that it had both on the material existence of the city and on its symbolic life. A grid plan for New York City was first proposed by a three-member commission consisting of the the surveyor Simeon De Witt, the politician Gouverneur Morris, and the lawyer John Rutherfurd. They were given the “exclusive power to lay out streets, roads, and public squares, of such width, extent, and direction, as to them shall seem most conducive to public good, and to shut up, or direct to be shut up, any streets or parts thereof which have been heretofore laid out… [but] not accepted by the Common Council.”

In the notes that accompanied their proposed map of the city, the commissioners declared

That one of the first objects which claimed their attention was the form and manner in which the business should be conducted; that is to say, whether they should confine themselves to rectilinear and rectangular streets, or whether they should adopt some of those supposed improvements by circles, ovals, and stars, which certainly embellish a plan, whatever may be their effect as to convenience and utility. In considering that subject they could not but bear in mind that a city is to be composed principally of the habitations of men, and that straight-sided and right-angled houses are the most cheap to build and the most convenient to live in. The effect of these plain and simple reflections was decisive.

Their plan was accepted by the state legislature in 1811. You can read the text of the report on this page from the website of the Cornell University Library.

One of our favorite commentaries on the effects of the grid is offered by Speed Levitch in the film The Cruise (1998). Click here to see what he has to say on YouTube.

Bookmark and Share

Today Bryan is lecturing on Royall Tyler’s 1787 play The Contrast, which he discusses in the context of anitheatrical prejudice in the early national period. (Click here for the online illustrated edition at the University of Virginia.)

Last week, I quoted from the introduction to Kenneth Jackson and David S. Dunbar’s anthology of New York writing, Empire City: New York Through the Centuries.

In 1624 when the Dutch first set up a trading post on Manhattan, their goal was not to convert the Indians or to practice a special religion but to make money. Visiting Manhattan in 1774 from Puritan Boston, John Adams expressed disdain: ‘I have not seen one real gentleman, one well-bred man, since I came to town. They talk very loud, very fast, and altogether. If they ask you a question, before you can utter three words of your answer, they will break out on you again and talk away.’

Jackson and Dunbar feel the need to rebut Adams.

Poor breeding? Perhaps. But New Yorkers established the first chamber of commerce in the Western Hemisphere in 1768, developed the first regularly scheduled shipping service in 1818, built the Erie Canal by 1825, and established the nation’s dominant stock exchange by the 1840s.

Adams rears his head as a sourpuss again in Bryan’s lecture. He refuses to give his approval to the courtship between Royall Tyler and his daughter, Abigail, nicknamed “Nabby.” In the introduction to play in the edition that we use, Early American Drama, Jeffrey H. Richards writes:

As a college student at Harvard, he participated in illicit theatricals with his classmates, complete with guards posted to warn of coming proctors, but with the intervention of the Revolution, further opportunities for such rash behavior would be few. He wrote poems and studied law and hoped by that combination to earn the good graces of one of his countrywomen, Nabby Adams, daughter of John Adams, his reputation in some circles as a frivolous youth damned Tyler in the father’s eyes.

Note that the Wikipedia entry for Nabby (to which we linked above) offers a different story. Nabby ultimately married a man ten years her senior Colonel William Stephens Smith, her father’s secretary. The wedding took place  in London on June 12, 1786. The Contrast was published the following year, and Bryan notes the similarities between Smith and the play’s Colonel Manly. Perhaps the play is more ambivalent about Manly than readers and audiences sometimes assume.

We were fortunate enough to see a production of Tyler’s play at the Metropolitan Playhouse last fall. Click here and especially here for Bryan’s thoughts on that production.

For us, The Contrast serves as a commentary on New York’s social theatricality, a point well captured by Luc Sante in Low Life: Lures and Snares of Old New York:

Manhattan was a theater from the first. When, early on, it was a walled city, and further surrounded by a forest of masts, it enclosed in its ring a small universe. This enclosure is the model of cities as it is of theaters, as can be seen when one compares old representations of fortress cities and of Greek amphitheaters and later theaters like the Globe. In Manhattan, social stratification followed a course in which the waterfront and the area environs near it became undesirable, became like the galleries [in theaters], while the dead center, Fifth Avenue, would be the orchestra stalls. In Manhattan, social stratification followed a course in which the waterfront and the area environs near it became undesirable, became like the galleries [in theaters], while the dead center, Fifth Avenue, would be the orchestra stalls. . . . The other answer has to do with the street that runs diagonally up the island—Broadway—putting itself on display and carrying in its train its dark twin, the Bowery. (pp. 71-72)

The Contrast is also the first of the texts that belong to the tradition of manners, which in our course will include not only this week’s plays, but also (at least) the novels by James, Cahan, and Wharton. Bryan illustrates the interplay of ideas about social theatricality, manners, and the experience of theater-going in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries with two film clips: the opening sequence of Martin Scorsese’s adaptation of The Age of Innocence (1993) and this scene from Woody Allen’s Love and Death (1975). These scenes underscore — one more humorously than the other — the significance of a long tradition of theater audiences watching themselves as much as, or more than, the actors on stage. The relevant scene here begins at 52 seconds in.

Bookmark and Share
Bookmark and Share

As ususal, I’m spending my Friday below 14th Street in Manhattan. Hooray for the Internets!

Kevin Walsh heads out to Brighton Beach and Coney Island [Forgotten NY]

And we hear rumors that the new amusement park will be named after an old one [Amusing the Zillion]

Willing to brave the cold? Take a self-guided graffiti tour of Bushwick and East Williamsburg [offManhattan]

Late link to photos of a late lunch with Pale Male [Urban Hawks]

Sunday lecture: Kerouac in Queens [NYC Parks & Rec]

Worst neighborhood name in New York history? Linoleumville, Staten Island, though some commentators would vote for Flushing instead. [Ephemeral New York]

And finally: Video montage of burned-out Bronx cityscapes in the 70s and 80s [Welcome to Melrose; h/t BoogieDowner]

Bookmark and Share

Tags: , , , , , ,

« Older entries