The Second American Revolution and Other Essays 1976--1982

by Gore Vidal

  The twenty-year interregnum when the producer was supreme is now a memory. The ascendancy of the movie stars was brief. The directors have now regained their original primacy, and Milestone’s storm is only an echo. Today the marquees of movie houses feature the names of directors and journalists (“A work of art,” J. Crist); the other collaborators are in fine print.

  This situation might be more acceptable if the film directors had become true auteurs. But most of them are further than ever away from art—not to mention life. The majority are simply technicians. A few have come from the theatre; many began as editors, cameramen, makers of television series, and commercials; in recent years, ominously, a majority have been graduates of film schools. In principle, there is nothing wrong with a profound understanding of the technical means by which an image is impressed upon celluloid. But movies are not just molds of light any more than a novel is just inked-over paper. A movie is a response to reality in a certain way and that way must first be found by a writer. Unfortunately, no contemporary film director can bear to be thought a mere interpreter. He must be sole creator. As a result, he is more often than not a plagiarist, telling stories that are not his.

  Over the years a number of writers have become directors, but except for such rare figures as Cocteau and Bergman, the writers who have gone in for directing were generally not much better at writing than they proved to be at directing. Even in commercial terms, for every Joe Mankiewicz or Preston Sturges there are a dozen Xs and Ys, not to mention the depressing Z.

  Today’s films are more than ever artifacts of light. Cars chase one another mindlessly along irrelevant freeways. Violence seems rooted in a notion about what ought to happen next on the screen to help the images move rather than in any human situation anterior to those images. In fact, the human situation has been eliminated not through any intentional philosophic design but because those who have spent too much time with cameras and machines seldom have much apprehension of that living world without whose presence there is no art.

  I suspect that the time has now come to take Astruc seriously…after first rearranging his thesis. Astruc’s caméra-stylo requires that “the script writer ceases to exist….The filmmaker/author writes with his camera as a writer writes with his pen.” Good. But let us eliminate not the screenwriter but that technician-hustler—the director (a.k.a. auteur du cinéma). Not until he has been replaced by those who can use a pen to write from life for the screen is there going to be much of anything worth seeing. Nor does it take a genius of a writer to achieve great effects in film. Compared to the works of his nineteenth-century mentors, the writing of Ingmar Bergman is second-rate. But when he writes straight through the page and onto the screen itself his talent is transformed and the result is often first-rate.

  As a poet, Jacques Prévert is not in the same literary class as Valéry, but Prévert’s films Les Enfants du Paradis and Lumière d’été are extraordinary achievements. They were also disdained by the French theoreticians of the Forties who knew perfectly well that the directors Carné and Grémillon were inferior to their scriptwriter; but since the Theory requires that only a director can create a film, any film that is plainly a writer’s work cannot be true cinema. This attitude has given rise to some highly comic critical musings. Recently a movie critic could not figure out why there had been such a dramatic change in the quality of the work of the director Joseph Losey after he moved to England. Was it a difference in the culture? the light? the water? Or could it—and the critic faltered—could it be that perhaps Losey’s films changed when he…when he—oh, dear!—got Harold Pinter to write screenplays for him? The critic promptly dismissed the notion. Mr. Thomson prints no biography of Pinter in his Dictionary.

  I have never much liked the films of Pier Paolo Pasolini, but I find most interesting the ease with which he turned to film after some twenty years as poet and novelist. He could not have been a filmmaker in America because the costs are too high; also, the technician-hustlers are in total charge. But in Italy, during the Fifties, it was possible for an actual auteur to use for a pen the camera (having first composed rather than stolen the narrative to be illuminated).

  Since the talking movie is closest in form to the novel (“the novel is a narrative that organizes itself in the world, while the cinema is a world that organizes itself into a narrative”—Jean Mitry), it strikes me that the rising literary generation might think of the movies as, peculiarly, their kind of novel, to be created by them in collaboration with technicians but without the interference of The Director, that hustler-plagiarist who has for twenty years dominated and exploited and (occasionally) enhanced an art form still in search of its true authors.

  The New York Review of Books

  NOVEMBER 25, 1976

  *1 Questions I am advised to anticipate: What about such true auteurs du cinéma as Truffaut? Well, Jules et Jim was a novel by Henri-Pierre Roché. Did Truffaut adapt the screenplay by himself? No, he worked with Jean Gruault. Did Bunuel create The Exterminating Angel? No, it was “suggested” by an unpublished play by José Bergamin. Did Bunuel take it from there? No, he had as co-author Luis Alcorisa. So it goes.

  *2 Peter Bogdanovich maintains that Kael’s version of the making of Citizen Kane is not only inaccurate but highly unfair to Orson Welles, a master whom I revere.

  *3 Wyler now denies that I ever told him what I was up to. It is possible that these conversations took place with Zimbalist but I doubt it. Anyway, the proof is on the screen.

  Sex Is Politics

  “But surely you do not favor the publishing of pornography?” When you hear someone say do not instead of don’t, you know that you are either in court or on television. I was on television, being interviewed by two men—or persons, as they say nowadays. One was a conservative, representing the decent opinion of half a nation. One was a reactionary, representing the decent opinion of half a nation.

  “Of course, I favor the publishing of—”

  “You favor pornography?” The reactionary was distressed, appalled, sickened.

  “I said the publishing of pornography, yes….”

  “But what’s the difference? I mean between being in favor of publishing pornography and pornography?”

  The conservative was troubled. “Whether or not I personally like or dislike pornography is immaterial.” Television is a great leveler. You always end up sounding like the people who ask the questions. “The freedom to publish anything is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution. That is the law. Whether you or I or anyone likes what is published is”—repetition coming up. I was tired—“is, uh, immaterial. The First Amendment guarantees us the right to say and write and publish what we want….”

  Before I could make the usual exemptions for libel and for the reporting of troop movements during wartime and for that man or person who falsely yells fire in a crowded theatre (all absolutes are relative beneath the sun), the conservative struck. “But,” he said, eyes agleam with what looked to be deep feeling but was actually collyrium, “the founders of the United States”—he paused, reverently; looked at me, sincerely; realized, unhappily, that I was staring at the lacing to his hairpiece (half the men who appear on television professionally are bald; why?). Nervously, he touched his forehead, and continued—“of America intended freedom of speech only for…uh, politics.”

  “But sex is politics,” I began…and ended.

  I got two blank stares. I might just as well have said that the Pelagian heresy will never take root in south Amish country. Neither the conservative nor the reactionary had ever heard anyone say anything like that before and I knew that I could never explain myself in the seven remaining in-depth minutes of air time. I was also distracted by that toupee. Mentally, I rearranged it. Pushed it farther back on his head. Didn’t like the result. Tried it lower down. All the while, we spoke of Important Matters. I said that I did not think it a good idea for people to molest c
hildren. This was disingenuous. My secret hero is the late King Herod.

  Sex is politics.

  In the year or two since that encounter on television, I have been reminded almost daily of the fact that not only is sex politics but sex both directly and indirectly has been a major issue in this year’s election. The Equal Rights Amendment, abortion, homosexuality are hot issues that affect not only the political process but the private lives of millions of people.

  The sexual attitudes of any given society are the result of political decisions. In certain militaristic societies, homosexual relationships were encouraged on the ground that pairs of dedicated lovers (Thebes’ Sacred Legion, the Spartan buddy system) would fight more vigorously than reluctant draftees. In societies where it is necessary to force great masses of people to do work that they don’t want to do (building pyramids, working on the Detroit assembly line), marriage at an early age is encouraged on the sensible ground that if a married man is fired, his wife and children are going to starve, too. That grim knowledge makes for docility.

  Although our notions about what constitutes correct sexual behavior are usually based on religious texts, those texts are invariably interpreted by the rulers in order to keep control over the ruled. Any sexual or intellectual or recreational or political activity that might decrease the amount of coal mined, the number of pyramids built, the quantity of junk food confected will be proscribed through laws that, in turn, are based on divine revelations handed down by whatever god or gods happen to be in fashion at the moment. Religions are manipulated in order to serve those who govern society and not the other way around. This is a brand-new thought to most Americans, whether once or twice or never bathed in the Blood of the Lamb.

  Traditionally, Judaeo-Christianity approved of sex only between men and women who had been married in a religious ceremony. The newlyweds were then instructed to have children who would, in turn, grow up and have more children (the Reverend Malthus worried about this inverted pyramid), who would continue to serve the society as loyal workers and dutiful consumers.

  For the married couple, sexual activity outside marriage is still a taboo. Although sexual activity before marriage is equally taboo, it is more or less accepted if the two parties are really and truly serious and sincere and mature…in other words, if they are prepared to do their duty by one day getting married in order to bring forth new worker-consumers in obedience to God’s law, which tends to resemble with suspicious niceness the will of the society’s owners.

  Fortunately, nothing human is constant. Today civil marriages outnumber religious marriages; divorce is commonplace; contraception is universally practiced, while abortion is legal for those with money. But our rulers have given ground on these sexual-social issues with great reluctance, and it is no secret that there is a good deal of frustration in the board rooms of the republic.

  For one thing, workers are less obedient than they used to be. If fired, they can go on welfare—the Devil’s invention. Also, the fact that most jobs men do women can do and do do has endangered the old patriarchal order. A woman who can support herself and her child is a threat to marriage, and marriage is the central institution whereby the owners of the world control those who do the work. Homosexuality also threatens that ancient domination, because men who don’t have wives or children to worry about are not as easily dominated as those men who do.

  At any given moment in a society’s life, there are certain hot buttons that a politician can push in order to get a predictably hot response. A decade ago, if you asked President Nixon what he intended to do about unemployment, he was apt to answer, “Marijuana is a halfway house to something worse.” It is good politics to talk against sin—and don’t worry about non sequiturs. In fact, it is positively un-American—even Communist—to discuss a real issue such as unemployment or who is stealing all that money at the Pentagon.

  To divert the electorate, the unscrupulous American politician will go after those groups not regarded benignly by Old or New Testament. The descendants of Ham are permanently unpopular with white Americans. Unhappily for the hot-button pusher, it is considered bad taste to go after blacks openly. But code phrases may be used. Everyone knows that “welfare chiseler” means nigger, as does “law and order.” The first on the ground that the majority of those on welfare are black (actually, they are white); the second because it is generally believed that most urban crimes are committed by blacks against whites (actually they are committed by jobless blacks against other blacks). But poor blacks are not the only target. Many Christers and some Jews don’t like poor white people very much, on the old Puritan ground that if you’re good, God will make you rich. This is a familiar evangelical Christian line, recently unfurled by born-again millionaire Walter Hoving. When he found himself short $2,400,000 of the amount he needed to buy Bonwit Teller, Mr. Hoving “opened himself up to the Lord,” who promptly came through with the money. “It was completely a miracle.” Now we know why the rich are always with us. God likes them.

  Jews are permanently unpopular with American Christers because they are forever responsible for Jesus’ murder, no matter what those idolatrous wine-soaked Roman Catholics at the Second Vatican Council said. It is true that with the establishment of Israel, the Christers now have a grudging admiration for the Jew as bully. Nevertheless, in once-and-twice-born land, it is an article of faith that America’s mass media are owned by Jews who mean to overthrow God’s country. Consequently, “mass media” is this year’s code phrase for get the kikes, while “Save Our Children” means get the fags.

  But politics, like sex, often makes for odd alliances. This year, militant Christers in tandem with militant Jews are pushing the sort of hot buttons that they think will strengthen the country’s ownership by firming up the family. Apparently, the family can be strengthened only by depriving women of equal status not only in the marketplace but also in relation to their own bodies (Thou shalt not abort). That is why the defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution is of great symbolic importance.

  Family Saviors also favor strong laws designed, ostensibly, to curtail pornography but actually intended to deny freedom of speech to those that they dislike.

  Now, it is not possible for a governing class to maintain its power if there are not hot buttons to push. A few months ago, the “Giveaway of the Panama Canal” issue looked as though it were going to be a very hot button, indeed. It was thought that if, somehow, American manhood could be made to seem at stake in Panama, there was a chance that a sort of subliminal sexual button might be pushed, triggering throughout the land a howl of manly rage, particularly from ladies at church receptions: American manhood has never been an exclusively masculine preserve. But, ultimately, American manhood (so recently kneed by the Viet Cong) did not feel endangered by the partial loss of a fairly dull canal, and so that button jammed.

  The issue of Cuban imperialism also seemed warm to the touch. Apparently, Castro’s invincible troops are now on the march from one end of Africa to the other. If Somalia falls, Mali falls; if Mali falls….No one cares. Africa is too far away, while Cuba is too small and too near to be dangerous.

  In desperation, the nation’s ownership has now gone back to the tried-and-true hot buttons: save our children, our fetuses, our ladies’ rooms from the godless enemy. As usual, the sex buttons have proved satisfyingly hot.

  But what do Americans actually think about sex when no one is pressing a button? Recently, Time magazine polled a cross section of the populace. Not surprisingly, 61 percent felt that “it’s getting harder and harder to know what’s right and what’s wrong these days.” Most confused were people over 50 and under 25. Meanwhile, 76 percent said that they believed that it was “morally wrong” for a married man to be unfaithful to his wife, while 79 percent thought it wrong for a woman to cheat on her husband.

  Sexual relations between teenagers were condemned by 63 percent while 34 percent felt that a yo
ung man should be a virgin on his wedding night or afternoon. Nevertheless, what people consider to be morally objectionable does not seem to have much effect on what they actually do: 55 percent of unmarried women and 85 percent of unmarried men admit to having had sex by the age of 19…no doubt, while jointly deploring teenage immorality. A worldly 52 percent think it is not morally wrong for an unmarried couple to live together.

  Forty-seven percent thought that homosexual relations were morally wrong; 43 percent thought that they were all right: 10 percent didn’t know. Yet 56 percent “would vote for legislation guaranteeing the civil rights of homosexuals.” Although a clear majority thought that fags should be allowed to serve in the Army, run for office, live where they choose, Anita Bryant has done her work sufficiently well to deny them the right to teach school (48 percent against, 44 percent for) or be ministers (47 percent against, 44 percent for).

  Pornography continues to be the hottest of buttons: seventy-four percent want the government to crack down on pornographers. Meanwhile, 76 percent think that that old devil permissiveness “has led to a lot of things that are wrong with the country these days.”

  Finally, 70 percent thought that “there should be no laws, either Federal or state, regulating sexual practice.” Either this can be interpreted as a remarkable demonstration of live and let live (an attitude notoriously not shared by the current Supreme Court) or it can be nothing more than the cynical wisdom of our people who know from experience that any area the government involves itself in will be hopelessly messed up.

  Despite the tolerance of the 70 percent, some 20 percent to 40 percent of the population are moral absolutists, according to the Kinsey Institute’s soon-to-be-published American Sexual Standards. Fiercely, these zealots condemn promiscuity, adultery, homosexuality, masturbation, long hair and fluoride. Out there in the countryside (and in cities such as St. Paul and Wichita), they are the ones who most promptly respond to the politician who pushes a sex button in order to…what? Create an authoritarian society? Keep the workers docile within the confines of immutable marriage? Punish sin? Make money? Money! There is a lot of money out there on the evangelical Christian circuit and much of it is tax-exempt.