February 10, 2023 The Review’s Review My Boyfriend Nietzsche and a Boy Like a Baked Alaska By The Paris Review Hans Olde, from “Der kranke Nietzsche” (“The ill Nietzsche”), June–August 1899. Goethe- und Schiller-Archiv Weimar. After two vodka tonics and a cosmo, my ninety-year-old grandmother lifts her glass and says, “But you know that Nietzsche is my boyfriend?” “He is?” “He’s my boyfriend.” It’s all right—we’ve shared boyfriends before. The actor Javier Bardem. Errol Louis, anchor at NY1. Her new neighbor. Her many doctors. She tells me that Nietzsche is her boyfriend because Nietzsche also hates the German composer Richard Wagner. I tell her Nietzsche hates a lot of people. She nods. “That’s good in a man.” Read More
February 3, 2023 The Review’s Review On Hegel, Nadine Gordimer, and Kyle Abraham By The Paris Review Gianna Theodore in Kyle Abraham’s Our Indigo: If We Were a Love Song. Over the past year I have read and reread Angelica Nuzzo’s book Approaching Hegel’s Logic, Obliquely, in which Nuzzo guides the reader through Hegel’s Science of Logic. Nuzzo presents the question of how we are to think about history as it unfolds amid chaos and relentless crises. How, in other words, are we to find a means to think outside the incessant whirr of our times? The answer she provides is one I find wholly satisfactory: it is through the work of Hegel that we are best able to think about and think through the current state of the world, precisely because his work is itself an exploration of thinking—particularly Science of Logic, as Nuzzo eloquently explains: Hegel’s dialectic-speculative logic is the only one that aims at—and succeeds in—accounting for the dynamic of real processes: natural, psychological but also social, political, and historical processes. It is a logic that attempts to think of change and transformation in their dynamic flux not by fixating movement in abstract static descriptions but by performing movement itself. By tracking the movement of the mind, a movement that is incessant and fluid, we are best equipped to study the crises of our time as they occur. In particular, we are best able to examine and analyze the structure of capitalism itself, a structure which is formed by exchange value and is thus a system of infinite repetition and reproduction. A system of infinite plasticity—appropriating everything it comes in contact with. A system, in other words, akin to that of the mind. Hegel does not merely explain how the mind works but enacts its very movement. He places us in the center of its whirr. —Cynthia Cruz, author of “Charity Balls” Read More
January 27, 2023 The Review’s Review Intuition’s Ear: On Kira Muratova By Timmy Straw Still from Anya Zalevskaya’s Posle priliva (2020). Courtesy of the director. In the fall of 2019 I was newly living in the Midwest. In my free time, I’d take long, aimless walks, trying to tune to the flat cold of the place. On one such walk I got a call from my friend Anya Zalevskaya; she was in Odesa, she said, working on a film, a documentary about the Ukrainian (but also Romanian, Jewish, and Soviet) director Kira Muratova. When Anya called, it was almost midnight in Odesa. She was sitting on a bench by the Black Sea; I could hear the waves, the inhale of her cigarette. What film of Muratova’s should I watch first? I asked her. Ah, she said, The Asthenic Syndrome, for sure. 1990’s The Asthenic Syndrome takes us to Odesa, too, but this is an Odesa at the fraying edge of a Soviet time-space where, significantly, we never see the sea. The film is shot in places that suggest a borderland, an edge, a wobble: construction sites, mirrors, photographs, headstones, film screenings, cemeteries, a dog pound, a hospital ward, a soft-porn shoot. This in-between sense is temporal, as well: Muratova notes that she “had the great fortune of working in a period between the dominance of ideology and the dominance of the market, a period of suspension, a temporary paradise.” As with the asthenic syndrome itself (a state between sleeping and waking), the film is a realization of inbetweenness, an assembly of frictions and crossover states we feel through form: through Muratova’s use of juxtaposition; through her uncanny overpatterning of echoes and coincidences; through the shifts of register between documentary and opera. The film doesn’t proceed so much as weave itself in front of us, in a dazzling ivy pattern of zones and occurrences. You could call it late-Soviet baroque realism. Read More
January 20, 2023 The Review’s Review Isabella Hammad, Elisa Gonzalez, and Peter Mishler Recommend By The Paris Review Katana. Photo by Kakidai, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons. Last week, I watched my first Kurosawa movie: Kagemusha, or Shadow Warrior. One of Kurosawa’s final productions, Kagemusha takes place in sixteenth-century Japan and tells the story of a thief who looks uncannily like Shingen, the leader of the Takeda clan, and who is employed to impersonate him in the event of his death to keep the clan together and protect it from its enemies. Shingen dies: enter the shadow warrior. This three-hour insight into feudal Japan, its structures of power, and the paradigm shift enacted by the introduction of guns onto the battlefield in the Sengoku period is mesmerizingly beautiful. Almost every shot could be a painting—cavalry battle scenes; the many councils of leaders draped with patterned kimonos; the delicate, expressive face of Tatsuya Nakadai, who plays both Shingen and his shadow. My favorite scene was the dream sequence: the kagemusha dreams of Shingen emerging dressed for battle, like an armored bird hatching from a shell, from the urn in which his corpse was deposited. The shadow flees, terrified, against a hallucinogenically colorful sky. The river water that splashes around his bare feet is dark like paint. I am ready to watch Seven Samurai. —Isabella Hammad, author of “Gertrude” Read More
January 13, 2023 The Review’s Review On Three Plays By The Paris Review MassDOT salt shed, Sandwich, Massachusetts, November 7, 2013. Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons. In Wallace Shawn’s Evening at the Talk House, a group of former theater collaborators reunite at the bar they once frequented together. They’ve since all gone their separate ways, some making good money in TV; others have cobbled together livings from various odd jobs. But when their sad-sack friend Dick (played by Shawn himself in the New York premiere of the play) arrives late to the party, face bruised and crusted with dried blood, the play reveals its insidious side. At first, Dick acts as if nothing has happened, but then, when pressed, he earnestly explains, “I was beaten, rather recently, by some friends, but you see, I actually enjoyed it very much, in the end. Really, it was great. No—I loved it!” Dick does what just about all the play’s characters will go on to do: compulsively excuse horrible ideas and horrible actions. Act like nothing happened. Act like everyone else is making too big a deal out of something. The play glides along so blithely that its evolution into a genuinely frightening horror story might catch you by surprise. A year after it premiered in New York, the ensemble cast, led by Shawn and Matthew Broderick and directed by Scott Elliott, recorded their performances for the podcast Intercepted. It works beautifully as a radio drama, especially since one of the most perverse and hilarious pleasures of this play is to hear those voices argue so pleasantly and so reasonably in favor of cruelty, as if they’re kindly injecting you with a needle full of poison. —Lucas Hnath, author of “Old Actress” Read More
January 6, 2023 The Review’s Review Only Style Survives: On Chateaubriand By Lisa Robertson Horned adder. Marius Burger, via Wikimedia Commons. I lie in bed until the voice says Get up and live, then I put on my slippers and read my usual ten pages of Chateaubriand over breakfast. Why Chateaubriand? Because it is an impossibly long book, and long out of fashion; because Baudelaire claimed him, in a letter to Sainte-Beuve, as the father of dandyism; because Proust heard in Chateaubriand’s style the fragile echoing call of an owl in the woods at night; because the book I want to write seems to me just as impossible. My spiritual fidelity is to the school of lapsed fashions. It is Chateaubriand’s tomb that I discover in my halting French—his memoirs from beyond the tomb, published posthumously, which I bought in four fat pocketbook volumes, inexpensive but with well-glued bindings and thorough footnotes, in a bookshop on the Rue de Bretagne. I now believe I turned up that street in unconscious attraction to its name: Chateaubriand’s birthplace is Saint-Malo, Brittany. The evocative mystery of a name means everything to him, as it did to Proust—a name, like a two-note birdcall from the woods, is the smallest signature of style. I compile an undisciplined index on the flyleaf of the first volume as I read it, as a future aid to memory but also for the private pleasure of watching this crooked list accrue in its variously colored inks. On page 336 he haughtily refers to Rousseau as a kind of cobbler or a schoolmaster. His praise for Lord Byron receives an entire chapter in the twelfth book. As a boy he learns about love from the Latin poets: he voluptuously reads Lucretius in bed at night, by the light of stolen candles, and I think of Lucy Hutchinson’s 1653 English translation of the then-forbidden De rerum natura, in which she describes how a lad’s nocturnal emission “wett / the shining Babylonian coverlett.” Chateaubriand’s own boyhood coverlet was almost certainly of coarse manufacture; his father’s version of domestic economy in their moldering château was Spartan, inadvertently preparing the writer for his future exile and penury. An aficionado of exile, four times he mentions the troubadours in the first volume. Of all the items I have noted in my index, the one with the most entries is tomb. This shouldn’t surprise: everyone dies. Entire languages violently disappear. There’s not a place on earth, he says, that’s tombless. It is to him the most fascinating subject. He sees America, where he traveled at length during the Terror of the French Revolution, as nothing but the tomb of the great Indigenous nations reduced to ruin by Europe. On page 493, he describes how at Niagara Falls he heard an Iroquois girl named Mila sing a song about the beautiful pattern of the adder’s skin; as she sings, he realizes that he already knows the song, which was recorded, he says, in an essay by Montaigne, who had heard a different Iroquois girl sing it two centuries before in Rouen. I am enchanted by this incredible story, so I look further, and learn the adder song has a spurious linkage. The girl at Niagara Falls could not have sung the song cited by Montaigne, who writes in his 1580 account “Of Cannibals” that it was sung by a captive Tupinambá girl from Brazil, in the Tupi language. So am I to believe Chateaubriand when he says that he has handled the decomposed skull of Marie Antoinette? It is he who identified the remains of the guillotined queen, he claims, which had been thrown perfunctorily into a collective pit. He knew her, he says, by means of the set of the teeth in the jawbone; at Versailles, in his youth, he had been familiar with the Queen’s wide smile. In July of 1791, alone in the forest near Albany, seeking, as he explained, the Northwest Passage, and believing himself to be in a primordial embrace with Nature, Chateaubriand heard the sound of a fiddle in the woods. He approached the surprising music to discover in a clearing a French dancing master in a powdered wig, apple-green suit, and lace jabot and cuffs, playing a tune for a group of twenty bare-torsoed, feather-wearing, dancing Iroquois men. These were the first Indigenous people the young exile had ever met. The fiddler’s tune, “Madelon Friquet,” had been a popular French fairground song. French dancing masters were then common in America, the notes inform me, having been displaced and there being no further call for them during the revolution. A faintly comedic melancholy is this book’s mother tongue. Chateaubriand says that the pleasures of youth revisited in memory are ruins seen by torchlight. I don’t know whether I’m the ruin or the torch. Montaigne was dead at fifty-nine—kidneys; Baudelaire at forty-six—syphilis, probably. Rousseau died at sixty-six of causes unconnected to his lifelong urethral malformation, described so exhaustively and enticingly by Starobinski; Lord Byron died of fever at the age of thirty-six in the Greek War of Independence in 1824, the year of Baudelaire’s birth. After a final visit to his mistress, Madame Récamier, he by then blind and she paralytic, Chateaubriand died at the age of seventy-nine, in 1848, the year of the third revolution and its failure and of Baudelaire’s grand political disillusionment. The attribution of causation to human behavior is generally a work of fantasy. Birds will speak the last human words, Chateaubriand says. Each one of us is the last witness of something—some custom, habit, way of speaking, economy, some lapsed mode of life. He says only style survives. You can read an excerpt from the first volume of Chateaubriand’s memoirs online here, and an excerpt from the recently published second volume here. Lisa Robertson is the translator of “Pos de chantar m’es pres talenz,” a poem by William IX of Aquitaine in our Winter 2022 issue. Her most recent book of poetry is Boat.