Edward Lear’s The Owl and The Pussycat (1871)

Every­body knows The Owl and the Pussy­cat, the non­sense poem by Edward Lear. There’s no rule that impels its inclu­sion in the pri­ma­ry school cur­ricu­lum; it is just one of those pieces of our cul­ture that gets passed down and which every­one has heard by the time they’re ten. Per­haps by osmo­sis. Or more like­ly, its appeal to many a nurs­ery school assis­tant charged with enter­tain­ing a room­ful of chil­dren, due to its deli­cious use of lan­guage, rhyme, and imagery.

First pub­lished in 1871 as part of his book Non­sense Songs, Sto­ries, Botany, and Alpha­bets, Lear wrote the poem for the daugh­ter of a friend. And like that oth­er great Vic­to­ri­an pur­vey­or of non­sense verse, Lewis Car­roll, Lear had that exquis­ite tal­ent for choos­ing just the right made-up non­sense words. “Run­ci­ble”, for exam­ple, as in the phrase “which they ate with a run­ci­ble spoon”, was one such coinage, right up there with Lewis Carroll’s ‘galumph­ing’ and ‘fru­mious’ from Jab­ber­wocky. Lear went on to use this won­der­ful­ly mean­ing­less adjec­tive to describe his hat, a wall, and even his cat. “The Run­ci­ble Spoon” would be a great name for a café, wouldn’t it? In fact, there already is one: I came across this in the vil­lage of Hin­der­well, whilst on hol­i­day in Runswick Bay:

The Run­ci­ble Spoon cafe, Hin­der­well

But is ‘The Owl and the Pussy­cat’ meant to mean any­thing? Is it sim­ply delight­ful fan­ta­sy with its owl and pussy­cat that can talk and sing songs, a pig that engages in finan­cial trans­ac­tions, and a turkey offi­ci­at­ing at a wed­ding? Should we read any­thing into the fact that they have to sail the seas for a year and a day, trav­el­ling to the land of the Bong-Tree, in order to get a ring? Or is it mak­ing a com­men­tary on Vic­to­ri­an soci­ety, sub­vert­ing its norms and mores? I don’t think we need to know. Sim­ply enjoy the ver­mo­nious use of words (ver­mo­nious? I just made it up, of course!).

The Owl and the Pussy-cat went to sea
In a beau­ti­ful pea-green boat,
They took some hon­ey, and plen­ty of mon­ey,
Wrapped up in a five-pound note.
The Owl looked up to the stars above,
And sang to a small gui­tar,
“O love­ly Pussy! O Pussy, my love,
What a beau­ti­ful Pussy you are,
You are,
You are!
What a beau­ti­ful Pussy you are!”

Pussy said to the Owl, “You ele­gant fowl!
How charm­ing­ly sweet you sing!
O let us be mar­ried! too long we have tar­ried:
But what shall we do for a ring?“
They sailed away, for a year and a day,
To the land where the Bong-Tree grows
And there in a wood a Pig­gy-wig stood
With a ring at the end of his nose,
His nose,
His nose,
With a ring at the end of his nose.

“Dear Pig, are you will­ing to sell for one shilling
Your ring?” Said the Pig­gy, “I will.“
So they took it away, and were mar­ried next day
By the Turkey who lives on the hill.
They dined on mince, and slices of quince,
Which they ate with a run­ci­ble spoon;
And hand in hand, on the edge of the sand,
They danced by the light of the moon,
The moon,
The moon,
They danced by the light of the moon.

Christopher Guest’s This is Spinal Tap (1984)

When I was young, not yet a teenag­er, I inher­it­ed from my elder sis­ters a num­ber of vinyl LPs, among them David Bowie’s The Rise and Fall of Zig­gy Star­dust and the Spi­ders from Mars, Cat Stevens’ Teas­er and the Fire­cat, the Moody Blues’ In Search Of The Lost Chord, and an album that appar­ent­ly didn’t need much of a title: Led Zep­pelin II. Although I loved all of these records, it was the lat­ter album that informed my imme­di­ate direc­tion in music; riff­ing gui­tar, crash­ing drums, shriek­ing vocals: what was not to like?

Soon I would encounter Deep Pur­ple, Thin Lizzy, UFO, AC/DC and Black Sab­bath, and by my mid-teens, a (large­ly young male) cross-sec­tion of the coun­try would be in the grip of the so-called “New Wave of British Heavy Met­al”. Seem­ing­ly all of a sud­den, there was a super­abun­dance of bands com­pris­ing long-haired, leather‑, den­im- or lycra-clad rock­ers: Judas Priest, Sax­on, Iron Maid­en, Def Lep­pard, Angel­witch, Pray­ing Man­tis, the list went on and on. And oh, the gigs! I attend­ed many of those. You would find your sens­es assault­ed by very loud music, bright lights, dry ice, a seething crowd of head­bang­ing fans, the smell of sweat and patchouli oil – it was cer­tain­ly a thrilling expe­ri­ence. How­ev­er, the idio­syn­crasies of the genre, along with some of the bands’ increas­ing­ly the­atri­cal stage shows and themes, would make them ripe for satire.

Enter Christo­pher Guest, a British-Amer­i­can screen­writer, actor, and come­di­an who would become known for his series of com­e­dy films shot in mock-doc­u­men­tary (mock­u­men­tary) style, and begin­ning in 1984 with his hilar­i­ous take on the heavy met­al move­ment, This Is Spinal Tap. Direct­ed by Rob Rein­er, it stars Guest, Michael McK­ean, and Har­ry Shear­er as mem­bers of fic­tion­al British heavy met­al band, Spinal Tap, and we fol­low them on their Amer­i­can tour. The film sat­i­rizes the behav­iour and musi­cal pre­ten­sions of rock bands, and to those with an inside view of the British heavy rock scene, the result is a painful­ly accu­rate and utter­ly hilar­i­ous pas­tiche.

Let’s start with the band mem­bers’ names, all great choic­es: David St. Hub­bins (McK­ean) and Nigel Tufnel (Guest) on vocals and gui­tar, bassist Derek Smalls (Shear­er), key­boardist Viv Sav­age, and drum­mer Mick Shrimp­ton. Most of the film’s dia­logue was impro­vised and dozens of hours were filmed, and giv­en that the prin­ci­pal actors were Amer­i­can, the fideli­ty to the British­ness is out­stand­ing.

The film is packed with great scenes of on and off­stage antics and dra­ma, but to keep it down I have select­ed three clas­sics for your amuse­ment: the scene where­in Nigel Tufnel takes us on a back­stage tour of this gui­tars and amps (includ­ing the ones that “go up to eleven”); the scene where­in the band get lost try­ing to find the stage door; and the hilar­i­ous Stone­henge scene, in which the band, play­ing its set-piece epic, is flab­ber­gast­ed to see the expect­ed 18-foot-tall stage props of “Stone’enge” descend to the stage at the cru­cial moment in dimen­sions con­struct­ed erro­neous­ly and under­whelm­ing­ly in inch­es. Price­less.

 

Spinal Tap
Spinal Tap

Dante Alighieri’s Divine Comedy (1320)

“Aban­don hope, all ye who enter here”. No, not to this blog (though it’s a con­sid­er­a­tion) but to the entrance to Hell, this inscrip­tion appear­ing on the gates there­of in the ear­ly part of Dante Alighieri’s Infer­no, Book I of his Divine Com­e­dy (Div­ina Com­me­dia). Thus begins an epic jour­ney through the Infer­no (Hell), the Pur­ga­to­rio (Pur­ga­to­ry), and the Par­adiso (Heav­en). And we are talk­ing epic here: 14,233 lines of terza rima (three-line rhyming scheme in the pat­tern aba bcb cdc ded etc), begun in 1308 and com­plet­ed in 1320, a year before Dante’s death. It is wide­ly recog­nised as one of the great­est works of world lit­er­a­ture; indeed, in T S Eliot’s esti­ma­tion, “Dante and Shake­speare divide the world”.

The nar­ra­tive describes Dan­te’s trav­els through Hell, Pur­ga­to­ry, and Heav­en, alle­gor­i­cal­ly rep­re­sent­ing the soul’s jour­ney towards God. He is accom­pa­nied through­out by a guide: in Hell and Pur­ga­to­ry it’s the great Roman poet, Vir­gil, whilst in Heav­en it’s Beat­rice, thought to be Dante’s “ide­al woman” and based on a real Flo­ren­tine woman he had admired from a dis­tance.

In Hell, Vir­gil shows Dante the poor souls suf­fer­ing a pun­ish­ment direct­ly relat­ed to the nature of their sin. This is con­tra­pas­so (“suf­fer the oppo­site”): for exam­ple, the pun­ish­ment for sooth­say­ers and for­tune-tellers (who had tried to see the future by for­bid­den means) is to walk with their heads on back­wards so that they can­not see what is ahead. The lust­ful, who allowed their pas­sions to blow them astray, are now con­stant­ly buf­fet­ed back and forth by stormy winds. Such poet­ic jus­tice is sim­i­lar­ly met­ed out to the glut­to­nous and greedy, the wrath­ful and vio­lent, the fraud­u­lent and hyp­o­crit­i­cal, and to the heretics and blas­phe­mers. Many real per­son­ages of Dante’s time are named and shamed, damned by their incon­ti­nence in life. It paid to live an upright life in Dan­te’s day!

Pur­ga­to­ry is con­ceived as a ter­raced moun­tain to climb, rep­re­sent­ing spir­i­tu­al growth. Dante dis­cuss­es the nature of sin, vice and virtue, and moral issues preva­lent in the Church and pol­i­tics of the day. The 13th cen­tu­ry was a rich time for medieval the­ol­o­gy and phi­los­o­phy, and Dante draws heav­i­ly from the body of work pro­duced by philoso­phers such as Siger of Bra­bant, Bonaven­ture and Thomas Aquinas.

The third and final part, Heav­en, is depict­ed as a series of con­cen­tric spheres around Earth, and here, Beat­rice takes over the role of guide from Vir­gil, rep­re­sent­ing divine knowl­edge super­sed­ing human rea­son. Here we encounter the car­di­nal virtues, such as pru­dence, for­ti­tude, jus­tice and tem­per­ance, and ever upward, Dante final­ly has a vision of the ulti­mate and in a flash of under­stand­ing that he can­not express, he sees God him­self.

If you’re imag­in­ing that a read­ing of the Divine Com­e­dy could be a great adven­ture, you’d be right, but if you’re baulk­ing at its length, an excel­lent alter­na­tive is to seek out the audio book nar­rat­ed by (of all peo­ple) John Cleese, who does a smash­ing job of nar­rat­ing this great poem.

 
Dante by Bot­ti­cel­li

Ken Loach’s Kes (1969)

I’m from York­shire and, like all York­shire men and women, am very proud to be so (you may have encoun­tered this prob­a­bly not-unan­noy­ing phe­nom­e­non if you’re not your­self from York­shire). The coun­ty is known for the rugged beau­ty of its Dales in the north-west, and its Wolds and Moors in the north-east, though it is asso­ci­at­ed too, in the west and south, with a bleak­er, more indus­tri­al land­scape, where social depri­va­tion and pover­ty has played its part. One such area pro­vides the set­ting for Ken Loach’s 1969 film, the clas­sic (and often very mov­ing) “York­shire film”, Kes.

The film, adapt­ed from Bar­ry Hines’s nov­el A Kestrel for a Knave, fol­lows Bil­ly Casper, a sen­si­tive and down­trod­den 15-year-old from work­ing-class Barns­ley who finds solace in train­ing a kestrel. It is a gen­tle dra­ma about harsh cir­cum­stances, and I remem­ber its impact: it was some­thing of a sen­sa­tion, and it won the young actor, David Bradley, a deserved BAFTA for his role.

Bil­ly’s broth­er bul­lies him and his fam­i­ly neglects him. At school, most of his teach­ers ridicule and reject him, espe­cial­ly sadis­tic Mr Sug­den (Bri­an Glover, with a bravu­ra per­for­mance you’ll see below). Bil­ly appears head­ed for a menial job with no future and con­se­quent­ly has no moti­va­tion and noth­ing to look for­ward to, until the day he finds a kestrel, a Euro­pean fal­con, which he befriends and cares for. He rais­es, nur­tures, and trains the fal­con, whom he calls “Kes”, and encour­age­ment from one of his more sym­pa­thet­ic teach­ers (played admirably by Col­in Welland) offers Bil­ly hope.

The nat­u­ral­ism achieved in the film is tes­ta­ment to Loach’s direc­to­r­i­al skills and his desire for authen­tic­i­ty. The schoolkids that he directs play their parts for real, with lit­tle appar­ent self-aware­ness. It often feels as if the view­er is watch­ing via a hid­den cam­era. Take this clas­sic foot­ball match scene, below, where­in Mr Sug­den boss­es the kids boor­ish­ly (though, it has to be said, high­ly amus­ing­ly), elic­it­ing much ban­ter, rich with local jar­gon and accent, from kids on and off cam­era. It will per­haps prompt rec­ol­lec­tion of cold, mud­dy sports pitch­es from your own school­days; it does me. How­ev­er, it is a charm­ing piece of social real­ism that you will enjoy even if you don’t catch every bit of dia­logue!

Jean-Léon Gérôme’s The Carpet Merchant (1887)

In July of 1798, Napoleon marched into Egypt and defeat­ed the Turks at the Bat­tle of the Pyra­mids, weak­en­ing past break­ing point the wan­ing Ottoman Empire. He was dri­ven out a year lat­er by the British, but in that small amount of time he had already changed every­thing: because fol­low­ing him came first a trick­le and then a tor­rent of west­ern­ers into the Near and Mid­dle East. They came and they jour­neyed through Turkey, Iraq, Per­sia, Egypt, Lebanon, Pales­tine, Ara­bia and North Africa. Many of them wrote about their expe­ri­ences, spark­ing a deep fas­ci­na­tion with these exot­ic, mys­te­ri­ous lands.

The artists came too, and they paint­ed what they saw: bazaars and souks; robed and mous­ta­chioed Arabs smok­ing hookah pipes; mosques and minarets; Turk­ish baths and harems. With time this became an art move­ment and today we call it Ori­en­tal­ist art. I love it for the way it con­jures up the exot­ic, and although it is clear that some artists let their imag­i­na­tions get the bet­ter of them (I’m think­ing of the harems, which no artist can have actu­al­ly seen), their depic­tions of these lands must have inspired many a beat­ing heart to vis­it.

One such Ori­en­tal­ist was French painter, Jean-Léon Gérôme. In 1856, he vis­it­ed Egypt for the first time and fol­lowed the clas­sic grand tour of a typ­i­cal occi­den­tal vis­i­tor to the Ori­ent: up the Nile to Cairo, then to Abu Sim­bel, across the Sinai Penin­su­la and through the Wadi el-Ara­ba to the Holy Land, Jerusalem and final­ly to Dam­as­cus. He gath­ered themes, arte­facts and cos­tumes for his ori­en­tal scenes, and then set to work, soon estab­lish­ing a rep­u­ta­tion back home which saw him become hon­orary Pres­i­dent of the French Soci­ety of Ori­en­tal­ist Painters.

There’s a gallery, below, of sev­er­al of his Ori­en­tal­ist works, giv­ing a good flavour of what he was about, and below that my favourite piece of the lot, The Car­pet Mer­chant. I have trav­elled quite exten­sive­ly myself in these lands, from Istan­bul, Beirut and Dam­as­cus to Mar­rakesh, Petra and Cairo; and noth­ing quite beats the sim­ple plea­sure of wan­der­ing the snaking alley­ways and souks of an old quar­ter, and tak­ing in the sights, sounds and smells of life there. The Car­pet Mer­chant cap­tures that feel­ing per­fect­ly.

The Carpet Merchant
The Car­pet Mer­chant

 

The Rolling Stones’ (I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction (1965)

In April 1965, the Rolling Stones embarked on their first head­lin­ing tour of the Unit­ed States. They had already had two US top ten hits (Time Is On My Side and The Last Time) but in terms of the British inva­sion they were still a notch or two below bands such as Herman’s Her­mits and the Dave Clark Five. One song, writ­ten dur­ing this tour, would soon change that.

The sto­ry behind that song is enshrined in rock folk­lore. Mid­way through the tour, in a motel in Clear­wa­ter, Flori­da, Kei­th Richards woke up in the mid­dle of the night with a tune in his head. Fum­bling in the dark for his cas­sette recorder, he hit the record but­ton and played the eight-note gui­tar riff. He also mum­bled a lyric — “I can’t get no sat­is­fac­tion” – and then fell asleep. In Richards’ own words: “On the tape you can hear me drop the pick. The rest is me snor­ing”.

Richards didn’t think his riff would turn into any­thing com­mer­cial; nonethe­less, Mick Jag­ger was inspired to flesh out the lyrics and when the band’s tour took them to Chica­go just three days after Richards’ noc­tur­nal ram­blings, they dropped into Chess Stu­dios (home to their heroes Chuck Berry, Bo Did­dley and Mud­dy Waters) and laid down the song.

This first attempt was actu­al­ly an acoustic, folksy ver­sion of the song, sound­ing noth­ing like the swag­ger­ing stomp it would turn into. It didn’t take long for that trans­for­ma­tion to occur, how­ev­er: just two days lat­er the band re-record­ed the song, this time in RCA Stu­dios on Hol­ly­wood Boule­vard. Richards had just acquired a Mae­stro FZ‑1 Fuzz-Tone ped­al, Char­lie Watts put down a dif­fer­ent tem­po, and the band gave the song a far more aggres­sive feel.The song was released as a sin­gle in the Unit­ed States in June 1965. It was a smash hit, giv­ing the Stones their first US num­ber one and set­ting the band on their tra­jec­to­ry to become the “Great­est Rock and Roll Band in the World”. Here’s a suit­ably elec­tri­fy­ing per­for­mance deliv­ered by the band and filmed dur­ing a quick tour of Ire­land a few weeks after the song hit num­ber one.

Joyce Lankester Brisley’s Milly-Molly-Mandy Stories (1925)

One of life’s great plea­sures is read­ing to your chil­dren at bed­time, and your blog­ger, accord­ing­ly, has read many a children’s sto­ry to his own girls (and pro­vid­ed, inci­den­tal­ly, many an amus­ing voice to bring char­ac­ters to life and make the sto­ry more inter­est­ing – I didn’t live through years of Jack­anory for noth­ing, you know!). Some of the books we read were con­tem­po­rary, and some were hardy peren­ni­als from bygone eras enjoyed by pre­ced­ing gen­er­a­tions. One of the lat­ter, from near­ly a hun­dred years ago now, and which stands out as a paragon of charm is Joyce Lankester Bris­ley’s 1920s col­lec­tions of sto­ries about Mil­ly-Mol­ly-Mandy, the lit­tle girl in the nice white cot­tage with the thatched roof.

To this day, from time to time in our house, we return to Mil­ly-Mol­ly-Mandy and read one of her sto­ries, each one a minia­ture mas­ter­piece and the lit­er­ary equiv­a­lent of com­fort food. Now, it is pret­ty obvi­ous that these sto­ries are not “rel­e­vant” to today, and they are vul­ner­a­ble to claims of sen­ti­men­tal­i­ty and a rose-tint­ed depic­tion of a sim­ple and long-gone world. But such objec­tions don’t mat­ter a jot to a child to whom the sto­ry is being read; nor to me, the nar­ra­tor, frankly. Chil­dren don’t need “rel­e­vance”; they need to be transported…and Joyce Lankester Brisley’s world cer­tain­ly does that.

We are invit­ed into a world of rur­al charm, in an unnamed vil­lage with a school, a blacksmith’s, a grocer’s, and a baker’s, along with copi­ous fields used as short­cuts by Mil­ly-Mol­ly-Mandy, Lit­tle Friend Susan, Bil­ly Blunt, and Toby the dog, as they walk to and from school or run errands for Moth­er. Each sto­ry begins with “Once upon a time”, and is fol­lowed by reas­sur­ing­ly unspec­tac­u­lar goings-on in Milly-Molly-Mandy’s life, be it run­ning to the shops with a six­pence for a skein of wool for Grand­ma, feed­ing milk to a baby hedge­hog, or hav­ing a pic­nic in a hol­lowed-out tree trunk with her friends.

The mag­ic lies in the way Joyce Lankester Bris­ley weaves her sim­ple sto­ries, the words and phras­es she uses, and the charm­ing illus­tra­tions, drawn by the author her­self, that accom­pa­ny the nar­ra­tive. Such sim­ple child­hood pas­times as “mend­ing” a pud­dle by adding peb­bles and stones into it, or get­ting wet and flap­ping and quack­ing like ducks: who does­n’t relate to that?

So to those to whom Milly-Molly-Mandy’s world is still cul­tur­al­ly com­pre­hen­si­ble, be warned: these sto­ries can give you a lump in your throat, as you mourn a dis­ap­peared world trod­den under­foot by the piti­less forces of mod­ernism and glob­al­ism! Nev­er­the­less, the sto­ries are an absolute delight and solid­ly deserve their place in the pan­theon of child­hood lit­er­a­ture.

John Singer Sargent’s Madame X (1884)

One of my favourite artists is John Singer Sar­gent, the great Edwar­dian-era por­trait painter. Born in Flo­rence to Amer­i­can par­ents, he lived an itin­er­ant ear­ly life in Europe, his par­ents mov­ing reg­u­lar­ly between sea and moun­tain resorts in France, Ger­many, Italy, and Switzer­land (alright for some). Sargent’s ear­ly signs of artis­tic tal­ent led the fam­i­ly to Paris where he gained admis­sion to the École des Beaux-Arts and stud­ied with the not­ed French por­traitist, Car­o­lus-Duran.

In 1879, at the age of 23, Sar­gent paint­ed a por­trait of Car­o­lus-Duran and exhib­it­ed it at the Paris Salon. It met with such pub­lic approval that his future direc­tion was sealed. He quick­ly accu­mu­lat­ed com­mis­sions for por­traits and his fame spread. He paint­ed com­mis­sioned por­traits right up until his death in 1925, but in between com­mis­sions he would paint friends and col­leagues for fun. It was one such non-com­mis­sioned paint­ing, Car­na­tion, Lily, Lily, Rose, that grabbed my atten­tion at the Tate Britain and turned me into an instant fan. How­ev­er, the sub­ject of today’s blog is the paint­ing that became Sar­gen­t’s head­line-grab­ber, Por­trait of Madame X.

Just as we saw when I blogged about Edouard Manet, Sargent’s suc­cess­ful career was not with­out scan­dal. In 1884 he sub­mit­ted Por­trait of Madame X to the Paris Salon. “Madame X” was “pro­fes­sion­al beau­ty” and socialite, Vir­ginie Gautreau, the Amer­i­can wife of a French banker. Sar­gent actu­al­ly pur­sued her to paint her, rather than the oth­er way round. It’s a deeply allur­ing piece, with the sit­ter stand­ing in pro­file, and the deep black of her dress empha­sis­ing the “aris­to­crat­ic pal­lor” of her skin. With cinched waist, the ele­gant bone struc­ture, and with one shoul­der strap seem­ing­ly about to fall off the shoul­der, the image could only sug­gest one thing — the erot­ic — and it was this, inevitably (for the time), that pre­cip­i­tat­ed the scan­dal at the Salon. It was only a tem­po­rary set­back (and Sar­gent respond­ed by repaint­ing the shoul­der strap in a “safer” posi­tion), and I don’t sup­pose a lit­tle bit of scan­dal is too harm­ful to the career of a gift­ed artist, after all.

In June of 1999, Nicole Kid­man was the cov­er girl of Vogue, and in her cov­er sto­ry, she posed for pho­tographs in a num­ber of John Singer Sar­gent re-imag­in­ings (includ­ing Madame X) by the pho­tog­ra­ph­er, Steven Meisel. The pho­to­genic Kid­man suits these pic­tures per­fect­ly so I thought it well worth show­cas­ing them here, along­side their originals…starting with the beguil­ing Madame X.

Madame X
Lady Agnew
Mrs George Swin­ton
Mrs Charles E Inch­es
John Singer Sar­gent

Rembrandt’s The Anatomy Lesson Of Dr Nicolaes Tulp (1632)

Giv­en all the stan­dard gen­res of paint­ing open to an artist in 17th cen­tu­ry Ams­ter­dam – land­scape, por­trai­ture, still life, his­to­ry, reli­gious – you could be for­giv­en for assum­ing that the sub­ject of today’s blog, Rembrandt’s The Anato­my Les­son of Dr Nico­laes Tulp, was some­thing of a one-off. It has a seem­ing­ly very spe­cif­ic and niche sub­ject: that of an anato­my les­son involv­ing the dis­sec­tion of a cadav­er! In fact, though, at the time of Rembrandt’s work in 1632, there was already a strong tra­di­tion of Dutch “guild por­trai­ture” (group por­traits com­mis­sioned by a pro­fes­sion­al asso­ci­a­tion such as the Guild of Sur­geons) and many of these involved dis­sec­tion scenes, so Rembrandt’s sub­ject was far from unique for the time.

This was the Dutch Gold­en Age. Com­pared to most oth­er coun­tries of 17th cen­tu­ry Europe, the Nether­lands was pos­i­tive­ly pro­gres­sive in its mod­el of gov­ern­ment. Since the for­ma­tion of the Dutch repub­lic in 1581, the Nether­lands had expe­ri­enced the emer­gence of a nation­al and cul­tur­al iden­ti­ty, and both reli­gious free­dom and open trade were high­ly val­ued. With a bur­geon­ing econ­o­my and the rise of the mid­dle class­es, it was a place where Dutch sci­en­tists — and Dutch artists — were able to exper­i­ment with­out fear of papal cen­sure. Guild por­trai­ture was there­fore an expres­sion of Dutch pro­gres­sivism.

The prac­tice of dis­sec­tion, pri­or to the Dutch repub­lic, had been moral­ly ques­tion­able: in fact, the Church had offi­cial­ly con­demned it, and even post-repub­lic it was still a grey area. How­ev­er, it was recog­nised that dis­sec­tion was part and par­cel of sci­en­tif­ic advance­ment, and so Amsterdam’s now-Protes­tant city coun­cil sanc­tioned the prac­tice on the con­di­tion that only the corpses of crim­i­nals were used. Anatom­ic dis­sec­tions soon became high­ly pop­u­lar pub­lic events, last­ing for sev­er­al days (and for that rea­son car­ried out in the win­ter, to retard the decay of the cadav­ers) and gen­er­at­ing a sub­stan­tial income from pay­ing observers.

Artists were thus com­mis­sioned to cap­ture the scene and guild mem­bers would have paid a pret­ty sum to be fea­tured in it. What dif­fer­en­ti­ates this paint­ing from all the oth­ers was the fact that this was Rem­brandt, the most gift­ed and pro­lif­ic artist of his age, and typ­i­cal­ly he under­took to reject the tra­di­tion­al com­po­si­tion of Dutch guild por­trai­ture and instead he adopt­ed a more vis­cer­al style. Rem­brandt puts the corpse at the cen­tre of the scene and por­trays it in full length, in Christ-like repose. It turns a group van­i­tas por­trait into a quite dra­mat­ic and arrest­ing image.

The corpse, inci­den­tal­ly, was one Adri­aan Adri­aan­szoon, who was con­vict­ed for armed rob­bery and sen­tenced to death by hang­ing (which occurred on the very morn­ing of the dis­sec­tion). Per­haps not the most illus­tri­ous rea­son to be cap­tured on can­vas for pos­ter­i­ty, but hey ho!

Anatomy Lesson
The Anato­my Les­son of Dr Nico­laes Tulp

Fred Astaire’s Revolving Room Dance Sequence in Royal Wedding (1951)

The rotat­ing movie set is a great exam­ple of how moviemak­ers can cre­ate cin­e­ma mag­ic. An ordi­nary stage is sus­pend­ed with­in a steel gim­bal, like a box wedged into a wash­ing machine drum, and then amaz­ing effects can be achieved, where­by actors can be shown to appear to defy grav­i­ty. This has been use­ful for hor­ror movie mak­ers (Jeff Gold­blum lurk­ing on the ceil­ing in The Fly; JoBeth Williams being para­nor­mal­ly rolled up the wall to the ceil­ing in Pol­ter­geist; Aman­da Wyss in the dream sequence from Night­mare on Elm Street…) and the tech­nique was also impres­sive­ly employed by Stan­ley Kubrik in a remark­able scene from sci-fi clas­sic 2001: A Space Odyssey. In this scene, a crew mem­ber is shown run­ning around the hub of the space­craft, its rota­tion pro­vid­ing arti­fi­cial grav­i­ty for his exer­cise; in real­i­ty, he is essen­tial­ly run­ning on the spot with the entire set rotat­ing beneath his feet. Here’s a brief clip:

Back in 1951, how­ev­er, direc­tor Stan­ley Donen used the tech­nique to superb effect in musi­cal com­e­dy, in the MGM movie Roy­al Wed­ding, which show­cased the tal­ents of the suave Fred Astaire. Astaire had already retired once, back in 1946, before being lured back into the movie busi­ness to replace the injured Gene Kel­ly in East­er Parade (1948). Roy­al Wed­ding is set in Lon­don at the time of the wed­ding of Princess Eliz­a­beth and Philip Mount­bat­ten, and fea­tures songs by Bur­ton Lane and Alan Jay Lern­er; how­ev­er, it was of course the dance rou­tines that make it stand out.

In one of his solos, You’re All the World to Me, Astaire dances on the walls and ceil­ings of his room (long before Lionel Richie scored a hit with that con­cept!). The idea had actu­al­ly occurred to Astaire him­self, years before, so it must have been par­tic­u­lar­ly reward­ing for him to per­fect this clever illu­sion. Let’s check out the scene both as seen by the movie audi­ence, along­side the “how it’s done” ver­sion.

Fred Astaire
Fred Astaire

Commentaries on excellence in art, music, film, and literature