Letters to the Editor
-
It's not all about Cindy Sherman
I haven't seen the film, so I can't say this for certain, but the interview indicates that the film is more about being second fiddle.
It's like going to your partner's perpetual high school reunion.
And the lesser known always comes out worse in a breakup, whether they handle it well or not. And it's easy not to handle it well because no matter what, people are not going to believe you if you say something disparaging about your partner. You can get hysterical just trying to get somebody, anybody, to hear your side. (Which is counter-productive, but breaking up is hard to do.)
This certainly happened to Heather Mills, who had quite a life in her own right until she married Paul McCartney. Now she's just the crazy woman who married Paul McCartney.
You can see the evidence right here in the Letters--all the talk about Cindy Sherman and what a little bitch Paul H-O is, even though this documentary sounds to be more about his experience.
-
Is it just me....
... or does anyone else automatically think of Cindy Adams every time Cindy Sherman's name comes up?
-
I'll grant you Paul is a clown.
But this argument: "He probably didn't fully understand what he was getting into, falling in love with, not just an another individual, but a jealously guarded and controlled commodity."
That's not what he said. He said this:
both of us -- as artists and as media people too -- we were pretty angry. We kind of felt like the system kept us out. We felt a little burned, so there are definitely hints of that skepticism over what goes on in the art world.
And
If you have a partner, take care of your partner, you know?...we were trading stories about getting shafted, you know? And I said, I'm making this movie...So watch out for the place card. Be careful of who you invite. And be conscientious, because it can really bite you in the ass.
Yeah, no resentement or undertone of payback there. I'm sure he meant "getting shafted" and "bite you in the ass" in only the most loving and uncalculated ways.
If Paul was really unhappy becoming known as "the second ex to make a Cindy Sherman film" then he wouldn't have done it. I'm sure he's basking in it.
-
Don't see Paul as the demon some here apparently do
I kind of wonder if I'm reading the same interview as some of the other posters here.
This Paul H-O sounds to me like someone who was in a 5-year relationship in with a partner that, while loving, was not at all equal. And it sounds like he has made an honest movie about this situation - including all the way through the breakup. And through this, he's attempted to illustrate this *sort* of relationship - one in which one person is not at all well known, and another person is extremely well off and in the elite of their profession.
Which to me sounds more interesting than Cindy Sherman's work. At least, for me. I've seen her pictures, and they're good. But this movie has more resonance and interest for me, psychologically. For what it's worth.
It doesn't sound to me that he's blaming her, as much as being matter of fact.
And ultimately, this film was made with the full knowledge and consent of Cindy Sherman, up through having input on how it's edited. She may not like the final result - so what? She's had input, but it's not her art. It's his. She doesn't have veto power.
In this film, I expect she has some warts on display. I expect he does also. This is how humanity is. Perfection doesn't even exist in art, let alone real life. That's what's beautiful about life and art.
-
Thanks Salon for clueing me into Cindy Sherman
I had never heard of her, but was intrigued and followed some web links and discovered her photography. I was immediately and absolutely astounded. I can hardly wait to receive the book of her first collection of 69 photographs.
-
yes
yes, I do know cindy, cdnfliua. jealous much?
she is an honest person. any man who regrets being involved with her is crazy.
-
Interesting
I've read both of softdog's letter, re-read the interview twice, and sat here eating macadamia nuts and drinking diet orange soda for nearly 10 minutes while I pondered what it all means.
As far as I can tell, the following is true:
1) Softdog's screeds are way off the mark. They neither fit the tone or tenor of the interview with Paul H-O or Cindy Sherman's own reaction to the documentary. As for Paul being a "whining jerk" or what not - I totally didn't get that at all. If anything I felt as if his commiserations on the life of "second banana" were actually somewhat self depreciating.
2) Cindy Sherman is getting to have her cake and eat it too. Evidently she had near-final say over how she was portrayed in the movie (always a plus) so she comes off looking great, while there is a faux controversy about the film and how it portrays her. The real controversy I suppose, is how it portrays the art industry as a whole, and I for one am not naive enough to pretend that Cindy Sherman, being the veteran artist that she is, isn't at least somewhat dissatisfied with the industry herself. Hell, I love my job and my industry, but I could talk your ear off for hours about certain aspects of it and people in it who just plain suck. Because of this, coming to the "defense" of the art industry as a whole on behalf of Cindy Sherman like it is some sort of surrogate for her rings entirely false to me. Of course Cindy wont state how she feels about it, but why should she? She's getting a ton of free publicity and eyes to look at a movie that reinforces the notion of how great and talented and famous she is, without ever having to lift a finger. If I didn't know better (and do I?) I'd have wondered if she, or her PR people, hadn't orchestrated it this way.
3) It seems that Paul H-O has actually managed to create a completely honest documentary about a subject that the public at large has little insight into. I'm speaking not only of the art world in general, but also what it's like for a man to be the second fiddle to the woman in a relationship. I find it utterly fascinating as a subject since popular culture for the most part completely ignores this possibility and instead focuses on the men being the center of attention with their female partners being these peripheral orbiting satellites. I wonder if perhaps some of the displeasure that people are directing his way isn't actually at how he in particular comes off in the film, but instead just general bias against any man that dare sublimate himself to his partner in any way. I mean, after all, Kevin Federline was long known as Mr. Britney Spears long before he went and made a joke of himself with his own terrible attempt at breaking into the music industry. I suppose it just goes to show that we as a society have a hard time dealing with this concept and are apt to heap scorn upon men that talk about it. I applaud Paul for actually sharing his experience with us, especially considering the dearth of real informative pieces about situations like this.
It's actually somewhat ironic to me that a middling critic and a poor artist could actually end up contributing something of real social value by creating a film about what it's like to be a middling critic and a poor artist in love with a famous artist and hence validating the fact that he just might have created a good work of art. The mind reels.