Haskell assesses Holl ywood's women By ANNE SHARP Film critic Molly Haskell spoke Thursday night in Rackham's fourth-floor amphitheater as part of a women's film series spon- sord by Cinema "I. A regular contributor to The Village Voice and Ms., Haskell did not present any startling new ideas about woman's role in the cinema (the subject of her speech), and her conversation frequently rambled into the realm of her own feminist views rather than the subject at hand. However, she at least proved herself to be a staunch champion of the women's movement, despite its recent loss of popularity., The program Cinema II distributed at the lecture emphasizes that Haskell "describes herself as a film critic first and a feminist second." True, she is as competent as any other com- mercial critic, but her aesthetic and political comments are so intertwined (she makes no effort to keep them separate) that she presents her audience with a lady-or-the-tiger situation: in each new paragraph, or each new sentence, will she be a film analyst, or an apologist for the women's movement reading her own sociological theories into the film she is addressing? Haskell's blending of politics and aesthetics may have kept her out of the big league, since she is a little too far out to write regularly for, say, Time or The New Yorker, but at the same time she has an aura of integrity that the Jay Cockses and Rex Reeds of this world do not posess. Rather than adopting the pose' of a prima donna, pettishly dismissing films that displease her or gushing over those that one's friends directed, she takes a careful, humanistic approach to her subjects which is a refreshing change from the arbitrary peevishness of some of her colleagues. HASKELL IS perhaps best known for her book From Reverence to Rape (1975), an historical study of the treatment of women in films. Formerly resident movie critic for New York magazine, her work has appeared in Esquire, Saturday Review, Mademoiselle, Vogue, and Glamour. Haskell presented her views in a pleasant, if slightly nervous conventional style. She based her comments on an historical overview of the portrayal of women in films, mostly citing her examples from Hollywood productions. For instance, she ad- mired the strong, self -possessed heroines of the thirties and for- ties. She also hypothesized that screenwriters of that era, ham- pered by the Hayes office ban on sexuality in movies, tried to keep their romantic plots interesting by postponing the inevitable (but never seen) union of male and female by casting obstacles between them, such as making the female lead an in- dependent career woman who must be tamed before she ap- preciates home and family as her true calling. Haskell cited a classic example of this paradox in The Moon's Our Home, a 1936 film in which Margaret Sullivan tries to defy boyfriend Henry Fonda by continuing her career as an actress against his wishes. Fonda responds by bodily dragging Sullivan off the plane to Hollywood, and carries her off in a straightjacket, while she beams up at him in happy submission. HASKELL DOES not seem pleased by the progress of woman's image since then, from the "mammary goddesses" of the fifties to the "buddy-buddy films" of the late sixties, where the Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid style of male adventure films became so popular "in fact" she commented, "it looked as if Robert Redford and Paul Newman were going to become the William Powell and Myrna Loy of the 70's." As for more con-, temporary films, she applauds Norma Rae for its unique por- trayal of a man-woman relationship that does not end up with both of them in bed together (although, she admits, there is a certain let-down when they don't). She also mentioned that Girlfriend, which is virtually the first made-for-and-by women's film to make it commercially, made a radical, anti-Hollywood step in featuring Melanie Mayron, a not-so-beautiful but decidedly interesting actress in the lead role. The critic claimed to be somewhat alarmed by the rising conservatism among college women, who despite rising divorce rates, seem overly romantic about settling down with Mr. Right. She attributes this supposed naivete to the shelter of campus life, where women don't experience the harshest inequities of the real, male-dominated world. As for the future of women, both in films and in society, Haskell feels optimistic that their lot will improve, although she is the first to admit that there is no pat way to gauge what is or isn't a "correct" portrayal ofwomen in the media. In the realm of cinema, she anticipates the release of Head Over Heels, a new film based on an Ann Beattie short story, and Joan Tewkesbury's new film. She acknowledges, though, the difficulty of working one's way up in the male- dominated filmmaking world. Television, though, she said, is a great training ground for women writers and directors, especially since, unlike commercial films, it is routinely aimed at a female audience. TV, she said, is at the brink of meshing in- to the cinematic medium. She looks forward to a time where there will be "fewer blockbuster, zap, dopey, infantile flicks" and more tough-minded, realistic, films about men and women. A cozy, melanch By JOSHUA PECK Charlie is a man with a rich, deep past, a wallower in the unmanageable menagerie 'of painful and pleasant memories of his youth, his adoptive parents, his first employment, and his first ill-fated attempts at losing his in- nocence. He returns to his native Dublin County upon the death of his dear old dad ("Da" in the Irish dialect), finding his way to the cozy lit- tle cottage where he grew up. He is greeted there first by a still-living friend from his boyhood, but soon after by the ghosts of his parents, friends, and even by a pre-incarnation of him- self. He spends the next few hours (weeks? months?) living through his memories, the glorious along with the glum, the sweet with the s'olemn. He vicariously relives some of his ex- periences, though this time through he is blessed with an advantage; he can pick and choose among the characters of his memories, and converse with, advise, and heckle them at his discretion. When he watches his earlier self making a clumsy move on the reputedly "easy" object of his adolescent desires, he sarcastically commends Young Charlie, "You in- sidious devil, you." THE RETURN to his youth has another merit that reality does not af- ford: In review, he can romanticize and rearrange things as he likes. A droll scene early in the play displays Charlie and his Da doing their sorry best to pour themselves some tea without scorching themselves. Their struggle with the troublesome kettle comes to an abrupt end when Mother arrives and snatches the pot up without so much as a wince. Her imaginary maternal magic ha~s become a part of Charlie's reality. For the most part, Charlie presents his spectres in a stern, unsentimental light. He remembers a frustrating argument with his mother over in- cluding a literary reference in a cour- tesy letter he's written to friends of hers, the spat ending with Young Charlie storming out in a fury over her intransigent anti-intellectuality. He remembers his dour, sphinx-like em- ployer Mr. Drumm, who can scarcely utter a supportive syllable, yet who unleashes a diatribe of negation to the then-impressionable lad: "You have to learn to say no. No to women, no to jobs, no tomoney .. . you'll learn to say no to life." Much of the time, Charlie Now sits quietly, ruminating the little dramas on parade before him. But sometimes, we catch him in an "if only I could have" pose, wishing he'd had the sense and sensitivity as a callow youth to express his feelings fully and from the heart. He watches his -younger self leaving the nest, eagerly making a dash for marriage and independence, but unaware of the fact that he will never see his parents together again. We can see his seasoned eyes hopelessly im- ploring the youth to run back for a moment to offer his folksa glimmer of appropriate affection, at least, before fleeing their charge forever. WHAT EMERGES from' Hugh Leonard's intriguing network of ghosts and irretrievable moments is a theatrical experience of poignancy and charm sufficient to warm one down to one's very toes. It achieves a rarely ac- complished feat, in completing its heart-achingly vivid painting of ethnic joy and pain while applying the brushstrokes with all but complete im- perceptibility. Though there is no program note to this effect, Leonard's play is tran- sparently autobiographical. The vivid mixture of folly and nobility that his characters make their home is simply too vibrant, too resonant with the sound of human nature not to be heavily in- fluenced by the man's own factual and fantastical recollections. Yet the playwright couldn't have done it alone. Powerful emotional leverage is wielded by the backdrop - a simple Irish sky - that illuminates the entire production. Designer John Falabella has found the very color of melancholy in his fading russet sunset. olyl Ken Billington's li turns simple and e scenes wherein th tete-a-tete contac ghostly figures, o carry on from a dis IF THERE IS a f title character's c perhaps in his act wanted his Da to be ce to warrant his so the old man's uny and self-satisfied m actor Jack Aransor objective. Charlie' line, "If you ran in car, he'd thank you example of the exp the patriarch's ch other, and perha quality, sheer lov The Michigan Daily-Sunday, October 28, 1979-Page 5 production ghting design is by bination of script and performer has legant, as needed by left the production a little too sparse. e older Charlie is in We see the r," +tIg, of Da's appeal, as ct with one of the when Charlie discovers that his r watching several periodic financial gifts to his father tance. have gone unspent, but rarely a gesture law at all, it is in the or word that is in and of itself the stuff onceptualization, or of the ubiquitous kindness that logically ;ualization. Leonard ought to show itself. enough of a nuisan- Ian Stuart is superb as the Charlie of the present, delivering his arch j fN/ remarks with all the acerbic sting they need. Even those few lines that are without ostensible malicious intent come off sounding shriller than an arrow's whistle. With all the jumping about in time, a n's frequent jibes at convincing command of "stage-aging' yieldingly detached is certainly called for, and amply nanner. Leonard and provided here by Aranson and n do succeed in that especially by Kevin O'Leary in the role 's wryly delivered of. the young Charlie's emnployer. to him with a motor- O'Leary's powerfully tranquil for the lift" is a fair technique is to suggest his advanced osition of this side of age in small ways, with a slightly aracter. But in the slower walk, a stiffer turn of the head, a aps more crucial tad of remorse for his inflexible ways of ability, some com- earlier years. The other performers, save one, all admirably meet the demands of their roles. George Feeney is a meek and sheepish buddy to Young Charlie, who. himself is played with suitably buoyant energy and naivete by Curtis Ar- mstrong. Virginia Mattis exhibits den- seness and warmth in about the right proportions, and Cynthia Carle is adequately disappointing as the tart of Charlie's dreams. Only Mavis Ray ever, shows signs of artificiality, an e,xx ceedingly minor problem for this best. of the Best of Broadway. George Feeney and Curtis Armstrong uncork an Irish melody in a scene from "Da," the Tony award-winner presented at the Power Center last weekend. r. 1 the Count 0 Pi I / / I. I;, uimpkin, latch The University of Michigan Alumni Association in cooperation with The School of Music present In Joint Concert With The W isconsin c&ngers NOV. 2, 1979 8:00 p.m. POWER CENTER Tickets available at the PTP Ticket Office, Michigan League Hours: Weekdays 10-1 & 2-5pin (313) 764-0450 Also at all Hudson's Outlets Tickets: $4.50 $3.50 TEC~IVAOLOG V AND PESSIMISM - !22w&ftw% The word's out on amuS , If you want to be in the know, you should be reading The Daily the latest in news, sports, les affaires academiques, and entertainment .., CALL 764-0558 to order your subscription today / ' // tl , I ' I. ! ! +'ils . 'I WEDNESDAY 31 October MELVIN KRANZBERG "TECHNOLOGY: THE HALF-FULL CUP" 4:00-5:30 PM Rackham Amphitheatre --F*L THURSDAY 1 November RICHARD FALK "TECHNOLOGY AND POLITICS: SHIFTING BALANCES" 4:00-5:30 PM Rackham Amphitheatre 1bDA /IS;Fi wct AD6 r v(-rkN - o ~ L Lf..xpY b AGI ,'W41 lop rusucallopS 6cAw"D , 4,1- £oL~tiA'ai, ,c okCkftS AJ/ SAMUEL FLORMAN "TECHNOLOGY AND THE TRAGIC VIEW" 8:00-9:30 PM Rackham Amphitheatre LEO MARX "AMERICAN LITERARY CULTURE AND THE PESSIMISTIC VIEW OF TECHNOLOGY" 8:00-9:30 PM Rackham Amphitheatre.