« Silver Screen | Main | How the US lost the War of 1812 »

11 February 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


I'd like to thank Maroc Telecom's wireless service for enabling me to read this post. The King may block google maps as long as he likes. I'm not sure what the odds are that the souks will have Indochine, but I'll certainly have a look. Oh to be snowed in with Deneuve!


And don't forget the Rothko chapel in Houston. I too have spent long periods staring at his paintings.


It is the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art in KC,MO.

Charles I

Pat, I'm curious, do you think those of Rothko's work you have posted, including the Chapel, limn the beyond, or the veil?

If the former, how terribly bleak and austere to a sensualist as I. I've had experiences in the woods that I credit as occurring within the veil itself, the veil being situate on this earth, with an occasional glimmer of what I credit to be elsewhere or otherwise beyond the veil.

Neither the earth, nor the veil nor the other were ever so stark.



Have you seen the Rothko chapel in Houston?

I was impressed. The nearby de Menil collection had some nice Rothko's, too.


not sure about Rothko (hard to say what makes an artist happy), but Deneuvue could warm things up in a blizzard.

Patrick Lang


I think Rothko saw his paintings as windows into eternity, or at least that is how I see them. pl


As a KC-native, let me recommend the new WWI museum at Liberty Memorial in KCMO. And double your pleasure by going east on 18th until you get to Arthur Bryant's. On an even more personal note, visitors should check out the new addition to the Nelson-Atkins.


I know you have discussed possible scenarios for a US and/or Israeli attack on Iran, but I am left wondering if the Iranians believe that such would likely involve limited air strikes targeting the nuclear infrastructure and are taking such a possibility as an acceptable risk (rightly or, as you seem to suggest, wrongly). I guess my point is I think it is at least possible that this is the Iranian thinking on the issue, and that is quite possible that in the event of a such a strike, they would not respond militarily against any US or allied assets in the Gulf. I see the Iranians wanting time more than anything else.

Would such a reading be completely wrong? Are you envisioning scenarios by which air strikes might include other government, military and/or civilian infrastructure? To go further, under what set of circumstances do see any possible introduction of ground forces?

I know you have addressed many of these issues, but I am just re-asking because of the content of your recent post on Iranian defiance (I would definitely agree that few things portend disaster more than an acute sense of one's own cleverness).


Patrick Lang


But have you seen the Rothko? pl



I have, but as you know we from the middle states prefer our Bentons to the intellectual mystics of the coasts.

Plain-speaking, and all that.

frank durkee

In D.C. go to the Rothko Room at the Phillips Gallery just north of Dupont Circle. As a mystic he understood colors, sheerness, and the neeed to move beyond images to the essence. A wonderful painter.

William R. Cumming

Melting here!


Mon Col.,

Merci. Oui, Madame (or is it Mademoiselle?) Deneuve looks absolutely stunnin' au naturel (& that's how I like 'em).

Can't imagine how in some parts of the world pitiful denizens there are taught that the female form is origin of all sin & then proceed to treat their womenfolk like c***.

God**** contradiction!

Methinks the Heavens have not given us Menfolk a much better gift than the curvaceous forms of the meeker sex.


Would Rothko have appreciated Deneuve?

I'm sure if he'd stood only a yard away from her when that photo was being taken immortality would have been more than an intimation.

Sidney O. Smith III

Col Lang

Thank you for the reference to Indochine. I have not seen it in years and may just do so this weekend.

Actually what I had on tap was seeing Crazy Heart (for the second time). I am baffled that post modern Hollywood could produce something that actually looks at the humanity of people in the “fly over states” .

True, I do believe extraordinary acting pushed the plot over some slight structural problems but still: the Jean Craddock character is actually from Oklahoma, a single mother and stands up for a child. This is the same kind of woman, who if she were in LA, people would not give the time of day.

I saw in the credits of Crazy Heart that Robert Duvall was also a producer and I cannot help but believe he had some input into this film. So in that sense it is a Duvall film more than a Hollywood film. Just speculation. (and I am NOT a fan of Apocalypse Now just think Duvall is a true craftsman).

For some reason, this film Crazy Heart reminds me of Sayle’s film, Passion Fish. But Sayle is not Hollywood.

It could be that both films tend to look at the humanity of people and just lets them tell their stories. I dunno’ for sure.

Again, thanks for the reference.



I have this inkling that Rothko might have been more drawn to Romy Shneider.

Clifford Kiracofe

Doesn't he do more straight line angular geometric "modern" stuff?

Not sure he could do justice to her "classical" curves...

Clifford Kiracofe

Vargas would have done the right "artistic" thing by her no doubt....


Cold War Zoomie

Sidney...just for you!

Stars & Bars

(Yes, I am still trapped on my street that has not been plowed yet with nothing better to do than search through months and months of archives for that classic pic.)

Larry Kart

Hate to say this, but I think that's a photo-shopped (or otherwise assembled/manipulated) image, with Deneuve's head attached to the body of another woman.

Look at the area where the left shoulder meets the face. Does not the physical relation between shoulder and face (and difference in detail, lighting/shading) suggest two images joined together? Also, Denueve's head seems a tad small for the torso we see, and doesn't the way it's placed in relation to the torso suggest that she has not much of a neck and, further, that her head isn't attached to her spine in a normal manner?

Sidney O. Smith III


That is the image I remembered! Definitely PC. By PC, I don’t mean Politically Correct, but Panama City! No?

Aren’t you from north Georgia? If so, you know, you know.

I think I am going to make one more grand attempt at a bikini clad reference and that’s probably it for me, at least for awhile. Truth be told, I am not much of a partier. Besides, I am counting my lucky starts as my fiancee puts up with my blogging and so on. So, like you, I am content with the idea you have called before, “She who must be obeyed.” Very, very funny!

But before I make my last bikini clad reference, I must take somewhat of a circuitous route, to hopefully give it some redeeming value (yeah, right). And since you are a military guy and I am not, I am going to say what I have to say and let you be the ultimate judge.

In the comment I made above where I referenced Apocalypse Now, I probably should have said that, imo, Apocalypse Now is more about Hollywood self indulgence and drug use and how Hollywood viewed the war than the VN war itself. It is a metaphor not for the VN war but Hollywood. Again, I say such as a civilian.

Once you see the film in that vein, it starts to make sense and in some way becomes a very, very powerful film. Like someone on Sunset wired on a psychedelic and who trying to explain something, the plotline starts out strong and then loses structure and coherence. The Brando character is about Brando. That village in the VN jungle is West LA, circa 1968 and so on.

When Coppola has the gall to say “I am the Vietnam War”, then that is about Hollywood egotism and so on. Of course, Coppola had a difficult time ending the film, in part b/c everyone was drugged out. So, hell, just slaughter some hapless cow/bull and call it a wrap.

When in doubt, always slaughter an animal and call it art. Works every time!

But there is one slight caveat here: as a civilian, one sequence jumped out and continue to jumps out at me. The Suzy q sequence.

I cannot help but believe the sexual politics underlying that sequence in Apocalypse Now is as accurate a reflection, or perhaps more so, of that underlying the USM than the ending of GI Jane, where Demi Moore is sitting on a barstool, like a queen B, and all these SEALS surround here, congratulating her with nary a sexual thought.

But I dunno‘…I am a civilian who is engaging in pure speculation. But here is the Suzy q sequence: Powerful, imo. Personally prefer it over PC!!! But to each their own.



Syncronicity! I have been reading your blog for a long time and I always get a kick out of those "rothko" posts. You did one recently and I remember wondering what the connection was with the rothko pictures...Apparently, I had missed it.

Presto! explanation provided. Muchas gracias Senor.

Patrick Lang

Larry Kart

How about the 2nd one? pl

Clifford Kiracofe

The earlier photo is from a 1965 PLAYBOY shoot. Tear sheets from the original for sale at EBay.

I would guess the photographer of the day was using fashionable motor drive 35mm equipment. He probably had several rigs with different lenses that his assitant was keeping at the ready. The distortion would be from the lens choice. Some wide angle to emphasize the foreground "curves" would render the head perhaps disproportionately smaller owing to lens distortion from the angle taken.

Those foreground curves deserve attention IMO...


Clifford Kiracofe,

You make a good point about how lens choice influences
distortion. This sort of effect is more commonly seen in photos of buildings. It is hard to photograph a building from the ground and not see some distortion.

Be they a Rothko or a Deneuve, great art always lifts the spirit.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

March 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31        
Blog powered by Typepad