Some Dirt in the Talk

Norman Mailer
{"title":"Some Dirt in the Talk","authors":"Norman Mailer","doi":"10.5040/9781501325540.ch-002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] This essay appeared in Existential Errands (Boston, Little Brown, i972). It was first published in New American Review, No. 12 is (August 1971) and reprinted with small changes a few months later in Maidstone: A Mystery (New York: New American Library, 1971). Reprinted with the permission of The Norman Mailer Estate. Wild 90 is the name of a full-length underground movie which a few of us, soon to be cited, filmed on four consecutive nights in March this year. It was done in 16-millimeter and recorded on magnetic sound tape, and since the raw stock costs of processing 16-millimeter sound and film run about thirty cents a foot or ten dollars a minute of shooting, we shot only two and a half hours in all, or $1,500 worth of film. Obviously we couldn't afford to shoot more. Still, for reasons one may yet be able to elucidate, the two and a half hours were not so very bad, and from them was extracted a feature film which runs for ninety minutes. It is a very odd film, indeed I know no moving picture quite like it since there are times when Wild 90 seems close to nothing so much as the Marx Brothers doing improvisations on Little Caesar with the addition of a free run of obscenity equal to Naked Lunch or Why Are We in Vietnam? It has the most repetitive pervasive obscenity of any film ever made for public or even underground consumption, and so half of the ladies are fascinated because it is the first time in their life they have had an opportunity to appreciate how soldiers might talk to each other in a barracks or what big-city cowboys might find to chat about at street corners. But then the ladies are not the only sex to be polarized by Wild 90. While the reactions of men in the audience are more unpredictable, a rough rule of thumb presents itself--bona fide tough guys, invited for nothing, usually laugh their heads off at the film; white-collar workers and intellectual technicians of the communications industries also invited for nothing tend to regard the picture in a vault of silence. All the while we were cutting Wild 90, we would try to have a preview once a week. Since the projection room was small, audiences were kept to ten, twelve, or fifteen people. That is an odd number to see a film. It is a few too many to watch with the freedom to move about and talk aloud that you get from watching television; it is on the other hand a painful number too small to feel the anonymity of a movie audience. Therefore, reactions from preview night to preview night were extreme. We had banquet filmings when an audience would start to laugh in the first minute and never stop--other nights not a sound of happiness could be heard for the first forty minutes--embarrassing to a producer who thought just yesterday that he had a comedy on his hands. Finally we had a formula: get the hard guys in, get the experts out. That makes sense. There is hardly a guy alive who is not an actor to the Hilt--for the simplest of reasons. He cannot be tough all the time. There are days when he is hung over, months when he is out of condition, weeks when he is in love and soft all over. Still, his rep is to be tough. So he acts to fill the gaps. A comedy of adopted manners surrounds the probing each tough guy is forever giving his brother. Wild 90, which is filled with nothing so much as these vanities, bluffs, ego-supports, and downright collapses of front is therefore hilarious to such people. They thought the picture was manna. You could cool riots with it, everybody was laughing so hard. Whereas intellectual technicians had to hate it. Because the tip of the tablecloth was being tilted, the soup was encouraged to spill. There was a self-indulgence in the smashing of Hollywood icons which spoke not only of an aesthetic rebellion (which some of the media technicians would doubtless approve) but Wild 90 hinted also of some barbarity back of it--the Goths had come to Hollywood. Based on the gangster movies of the thirties, the movie nonetheless had a quasi-Martian flavor, a primitive pleasure in itself, as if it had discovered the wheel which made all film go round. …","PeriodicalId":259119,"journal":{"name":"The Mailer Review","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Mailer Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5040/9781501325540.ch-002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] This essay appeared in Existential Errands (Boston, Little Brown, i972). It was first published in New American Review, No. 12 is (August 1971) and reprinted with small changes a few months later in Maidstone: A Mystery (New York: New American Library, 1971). Reprinted with the permission of The Norman Mailer Estate. Wild 90 is the name of a full-length underground movie which a few of us, soon to be cited, filmed on four consecutive nights in March this year. It was done in 16-millimeter and recorded on magnetic sound tape, and since the raw stock costs of processing 16-millimeter sound and film run about thirty cents a foot or ten dollars a minute of shooting, we shot only two and a half hours in all, or $1,500 worth of film. Obviously we couldn't afford to shoot more. Still, for reasons one may yet be able to elucidate, the two and a half hours were not so very bad, and from them was extracted a feature film which runs for ninety minutes. It is a very odd film, indeed I know no moving picture quite like it since there are times when Wild 90 seems close to nothing so much as the Marx Brothers doing improvisations on Little Caesar with the addition of a free run of obscenity equal to Naked Lunch or Why Are We in Vietnam? It has the most repetitive pervasive obscenity of any film ever made for public or even underground consumption, and so half of the ladies are fascinated because it is the first time in their life they have had an opportunity to appreciate how soldiers might talk to each other in a barracks or what big-city cowboys might find to chat about at street corners. But then the ladies are not the only sex to be polarized by Wild 90. While the reactions of men in the audience are more unpredictable, a rough rule of thumb presents itself--bona fide tough guys, invited for nothing, usually laugh their heads off at the film; white-collar workers and intellectual technicians of the communications industries also invited for nothing tend to regard the picture in a vault of silence. All the while we were cutting Wild 90, we would try to have a preview once a week. Since the projection room was small, audiences were kept to ten, twelve, or fifteen people. That is an odd number to see a film. It is a few too many to watch with the freedom to move about and talk aloud that you get from watching television; it is on the other hand a painful number too small to feel the anonymity of a movie audience. Therefore, reactions from preview night to preview night were extreme. We had banquet filmings when an audience would start to laugh in the first minute and never stop--other nights not a sound of happiness could be heard for the first forty minutes--embarrassing to a producer who thought just yesterday that he had a comedy on his hands. Finally we had a formula: get the hard guys in, get the experts out. That makes sense. There is hardly a guy alive who is not an actor to the Hilt--for the simplest of reasons. He cannot be tough all the time. There are days when he is hung over, months when he is out of condition, weeks when he is in love and soft all over. Still, his rep is to be tough. So he acts to fill the gaps. A comedy of adopted manners surrounds the probing each tough guy is forever giving his brother. Wild 90, which is filled with nothing so much as these vanities, bluffs, ego-supports, and downright collapses of front is therefore hilarious to such people. They thought the picture was manna. You could cool riots with it, everybody was laughing so hard. Whereas intellectual technicians had to hate it. Because the tip of the tablecloth was being tilted, the soup was encouraged to spill. There was a self-indulgence in the smashing of Hollywood icons which spoke not only of an aesthetic rebellion (which some of the media technicians would doubtless approve) but Wild 90 hinted also of some barbarity back of it--the Goths had come to Hollywood. Based on the gangster movies of the thirties, the movie nonetheless had a quasi-Martian flavor, a primitive pleasure in itself, as if it had discovered the wheel which made all film go round. …
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
谈话中有些肮脏的东西
这篇文章发表于《存在主义的差事》(波士顿,利特布朗出版社,1972年)。它首次发表在《新美国评论》第12期(1971年8月)上,几个月后在《梅德斯通:一个谜》(纽约:新美国图书馆,1971年)上作了一些小改动重印。经诺曼·梅勒遗产管理公司许可转载。《狂野90》是一部全长的地下电影的名字,今年3月,我们几个人连续拍摄了四个晚上,很快就会被引用。它是用16毫米胶片拍摄的,并记录在磁性磁带上,由于处理16毫米声音和胶片的原始库存成本约为每英尺30美分,或每分钟10美元,我们总共只拍摄了两个半小时,或价值1500美元的胶片。显然,我们不能再投更多的球了。不过,出于某种原因,这两个半小时还不算太糟,而且从中提取出了一部长达九十分钟的故事片。这是一部非常奇怪的电影,事实上,我知道没有哪部电影能和它相提并论,因为有些时候,《荒野90》似乎什么都没有,就像马克思兄弟在《小凯撒》上即兴表演,外加一段自由运行的淫秽内容,相当于《裸体午餐》或《我们为什么在越南》。在所有为公众甚至地下消费而制作的电影中,它有最重复、最普遍的淫秽内容,所以一半的女士都很着迷,因为这是她们有生以来第一次有机会欣赏士兵们在军营里是如何相互交谈的,或者大城市的牛仔们在街角会聊些什么。但女性并不是唯一被Wild 90极化的性别。虽然观众中男性的反应更难以预测,但有一条粗略的经验法则:真正的硬汉,无缘无故被邀请,通常会对电影笑得前呼后应;通讯行业的白领和知识分子技术人员也被免费邀请,他们往往对这幅画保持沉默。在拍摄《Wild 90》的过程中,我们每周都会进行一次预览。由于放映室很小,观众被限制在10人、12人或15人。那是一个奇怪的数字去看电影。看电视的人太多了,不能像看电视那样自由地走动和大声说话;另一方面,这是一个令人痛苦的数字,太少了,无法感受到电影观众的匿名性。因此,从预演夜到预演夜的反应是极端的。我们在宴会拍摄时,观众会在开场的第一分钟就开始大笑,而且笑个不停——其他晚上,开场的四十分钟都听不到一丝欢声笑语——这让制片人很尴尬,因为他昨天还以为自己拍的是一部喜剧。最后我们有了一个公式:让硬汉进来,让专家出去。这说得通。几乎没有一个活着的人不是彻头彻尾的演员——原因很简单。他不可能总是那么强硬。有几天他喝醉了,有几个月他身体不好,有几个星期他坠入爱河,全身柔软。尽管如此,他的名声还是很强硬。所以他采取行动填补空白。一个习惯的喜剧围绕着每个硬汉永远对他的兄弟的试探。《狂野90》充满了这些虚荣、虚张声势、自我支撑和彻底的崩溃,因此对这些人来说是滑稽的。他们以为那是吗哪。你可以用它来冷却骚乱,每个人都笑得很开心。而聪明的技术人员却讨厌它。因为桌布的尖端是倾斜的,汤被鼓励洒出来。砸碎好莱坞偶像是一种自我放纵,这不仅说明了审美上的反叛(一些媒体技术人员无疑会赞同这一点),而且《怀尔德90》还暗示了它背后的某种野蛮——哥特人来到了好莱坞。这部电影以三十年代的黑帮电影为基础,但却有一种类似火星人的味道,它本身就有一种原始的快感,就好像它发现了让所有电影都运转起来的轮子。…
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Deer Park Words with Friends The Life and Death of the Celebrity Author in Maidstone Overexposed: My First Taste of Filmmaking A Course in Film-Making
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1