from now on i will trim down some. take the hint from a young contemporary or two. therefore i will be only “howe”. i like it enough, although it sounds like an expression of some small pain; “ow”. a small pain combined with a sigh; “hhh ow”. but it’s ok, this sigh of a small pain. it’s enough. as for “gelb”, it’s just so unnecessary. austrian in origin from the father’s side. and a welsh great grandmother from the mother’s side, whom at some point married a spaniard. i don’t what else you call a fellow from spain, but spaniard still sounds armored somehow. ok. that’s all about the author at the moment.
let’s talk about hilary swank now. we were on tour in january and making our way down south on the east coast in our little rented mini van. driving from boston to austin. we were happy to finally get south and hit north carolina, getting further away from the frigid northeast. instead, a freak blizzard hit the area. folks in the south can’t drive in snow. they just slam on the breaks and call it a day. then climb outa the ditch. this meant no one would show for our show.
while walking along there in chapel hill, came upon an old movie theater with “boys don’t cry” showing that afternoon. it’s a rare and wonderful opportunity to see a film you’ve heard nothing about cause it nicely surprises the senses and logic system with no prior indication of what you’re walking into. (this gamble can go horribly wrong of course like when i brought my previous pregnant wife to see the slaughter flick “step father” in 1987). i also i very much enjoy that certain unmanipulated beauty walking into a film already in progress.
the film’s bleak realism reoccurred in random stabs of memory for the following few weeks. and i did recognize the film lapse signature segment of john pirazi in it too. but it was hilary’s presence that held me glued and what i found most fascinating was no matter how great her skill on screen with tactical male behavioral, she still stunned me from being so beautiful. so winningly female. it began to beg the question: at what point does the female form and mind set not spark desire?
how can this woman on screen looking and acting like a dude still radiate voluptuousness? her depiction can’t completely fool the senses. maybe it’s the androgynous nature of the lowly musician that connects with such stimuli. bowie. jagger. young. plant and page. hank williams. even young dylan.
ok. months later she actually wins an oscar for her part played. a grand victory considering the film’s subject matter and budget. but seeing her then in full gown and long hair, muttering so eloquently, was almost too much to bear. the quick shot of her husband with tear streaming down his cheek said it all.
the camera usually lies when it falls in love with its subject, then transmits. we absorb.
a few weeks later i’m in paris for a day. its cold and raining and has a definitive certain cast to its dark light. this should be stark and annoying right, but instead, insanely beautiful when the day is peppered with the striking warmth and glow of any given female. they not only seem to cut through the despair of such weather, but the contrast is unbearable again. the swank effect. like some form of gravity. the pull, enormous. but why ? how does that work ?
i have tried to break it down to the most basic common denominator and all i could come up with, searching for the source of this particular nile, is it’s their egg.
from that initial point all things are shaped and all opinions formed.
the temptation of egg.
i believe juiliana summed it up nicely once. “goo me”, was the utterance.
you do goo.
and we as men, are doomed.
when i try to discuss this all with my wife, she gets somewhat riled.
is she trying to throw me off the trail ?