(Movie) Tickets, Please!: Of D.H Lawrence and Harvey Weinstein

D.H. Lawrence

In D.H. Lawrence's short story, Tickets, Please!, John Thomas Raynor is a tram car inspector in the North of England during World War I. Since so many able bodied men are off fighting in France, women are taking jobs as conductors, among other professions once reserved for men, on a tram line that connects the industrial towns of the North. John Thomas, also known, derisively, as Coddy, is one of the few men left on the home front who isn't either elderly or physically disabled. He capitalizes on his male to female ratio advantage by "walking out" with several of the more attractive women conductors. After he uses them and dumps them, some leave the service in disgrace while others continue as if nothing happened. But one, Annie, will have none of it. It takes a long time for her to succumb to Coddy's charms, and when she finally does, it's love, at least for her. When she presses too hard, trying to get to know who John Thomas really is on the inside, trying to form a more intimate bond, looking for a commitment, he puts her aside like he did all the others. 

Instead of quitting her job amid scandalous whispers or keeping calm and carrying on, Annie plots a late night encounter in the tram depot between John Thomas and six more of his erstwhile liaisons. What begins with a benign cup of tea ends with the women beating Coddy within an inch of his life. When forced to choose one of them for a wife, he picks Annie, who now will have nothing to do with him. He leaves, cloths torn, face bloodied, head bowed as the women tidy themselves up. Some are laughing, some are quietly satisfied with their revenge, but Annie still seethes, for out of all of them, his late night kisses and warm embraces meant the most, because she was truly in love.

Harvey Weinstein

I thought of this story as I've been reflecting on the saga of Harvey Weinstein, the movie producer caught up in a sex scandal that is consuming Hollywood, and whose ramifications extend throughout the entertainment industry, and even into politics. 

The fictional John Thomas and the very real life Harvey Weinstein have very little in common, except for their penchant for using and discarding young attractive women at work.  John Thomas is actually handsome and charming. He doesn't exercises brute force to win his conquests, but is patiently seductive. We don't get the sense that he fires women who resist, and the ones who leave the tram service's employ do so only after having given in, out of embarrassment, sometimes their own, sometimes that of their families. Harvey Weinstein, not exactly a prize in the looks department, is, by all reports, a crude bully who, almost as a matter of course, used his position as one of the most powerful men in the film industry to pressure women into sex for work in the movies. I won't go into the gory details, but we're not talking about a roguish gentleman here. While you wouldn't want either man to be the dean of a girls school, I could see having a beer with John Thomas. I'm not sure I'd even want to be in the same bar as Harvey Weinstein, let alone share a drink.

What made me think of Tickets, Please! during this scandal is the story's pay off. Actress Rose McGowan, the most vocal of Weinstein's accusers, did't literally lock him in a train car with six other furious actresses for a good old fashioned tail whooping, but she has been the ring leader of a cyber smack down just as vicious. She hasn't been content to just target Weinstein, but has also called out other actors and film executives for acts of misogyny. What motivated McGowan and others to come forward now, and the New York Times to break a story they and others had been sitting on for years, is a mystery, at least to me. But what is not a mystery is her fury. She isn't a jilted lover, but she is a woman taken advantage of by powerful men who allegedly derailed her career when she wouldn't play the Hollywood game. Like Annie, her willingness to come forward empowered others to stand up and confront the bully.

Harry Cohn

For all the press coverage the scandal has received, Harvey Weinstein isn't a unique figure in the history of the motion picture industry. The "casting couch" has been a part of show business as long as actors have had to audition for parts and yes, men and children can be victims of it too. Harry Cohn, the co-founder and head of Colombia Pictures through Hollywood's "golden age" of the 1930's and '40's was notorious for propositioning actresses. Some, like Rita Hayworth and Joan Crawford were established enough that they could tell him where to get off. Others like Marilyn Monroe, as she was trying to break in the business, wasn't so lucky. Like Weinstein, Cohn was known as a crude bully who used fear to get what he wanted. When he died, comedian Red Skelton commented on the large crowd that attended the mogul's funeral by saying, "It proves what Harry always said: give the public what they want and they'll come out for it."

Just because a practice is common and has a long history doesn't make it right, of course, as is the point that we shouldn't blame the victims. If courage came easy this, along with countless other forms of exploitation, wouldn't exist, or at least their occurrence would be very rare. But people are ambitious. They want to move up in the their chosen professions, and show business breeds a particular type of ambition. Aspiring actors and actresses are tempted in ways your average accountant or plumber can't imagine. There is money, fame and pleasure, which are only the beginning. For those who get into directing and producing these allurements are augmented by the grasping for power. For those who are determined there might not be anything they won't do to see their dreams come true. For those who have "made it" the focus becomes keeping the wealth and security they've gained: some do it by keeping quite about misconduct, others use intimidation, lording their power over others. All this makes resisting the indignities of the casting couch difficult, and speaking up about it doubly so. Many do decide that there are some things that they just won't do for fame and fortune. If these resisters are lucky they can settle for a B or C list existence, missing out on bigger parts, not because they lack talent, but because there are limits to how much they'll play the game. Others abandon their careers in show business all together, choosing their dignity over celebrity. There are still others for whom the draw of stardom is just too much, and either give in to or tolerate behavior that is simply beyond the pale. Morally reprehensible? Yes. Shocking? Sadly, no.

Weinstein initially tried to excuse his behavior by saying that he is a child of the '60's Sexual Revolution, when things were looser and certain behaviors weren't simply tolerated but celebrated. I could see him, in perfect George Costanza fashion, stating quite earnestly that if he knew that this type of behavior was frowned upon he never would have done it. This simply isn't true, even if he believes his own words. As we've seen, this type of thing has more to do with the Roaring '20's than the Swinging '60's. The Sexual Revolution was in theory about women taking control of their sex lives, gaining the right to be as promiscuous as a man and not be judged negatively for it. It was a misguided movement, but it was about consensual sex, not sex as power or sex as transaction - which are what the casting couch is all about.

Hugh Hefner 

This scandal arrives at an ironic moment, especially in light of Weinstein's particular excuse. Hugh Hefner, Playboy founder and Sexual Revolution popularizer, passed away September 27. In spite of the propaganda, the so called Playboy Philosophy was about men enjoying the good things of life, including sex, especially sex, without limits. Women were "free" to indulge in these pleasures also, of course. The Pill and other forms of artificial contraception made the consequences of intercourse irrelevant. Sex is no longer the reserve of the marriage bed, linked intimately to parenthood and family. It is ideally a sign of some sort of commitment, but really about recreation. Men and women could participate equally, each exploring and indulging their sexuality as a means of self discovery and self fulfillment. The social strictures placed on women, in particular, were simply societal constructs fueled by structural sexism and the accident of biology that has "saddled" women with the burden of childbearing. Hef was all about night clubs, expensive hi-fi stereos, gourmet meals, fine wines, and sex as the the finish to a night on the town, as Kyle Smith put it. All without strings or consequences.

At first feminists played along, but in short order they caught on to the game these low rent Don Juan's were playing. Being used is being used, no matter how someone tries to intellectualize it. To this day there is a conflict within feminism between the "pro-sex wing," supported by the likes of Camille Paglia - who coined the phrase - who see the more promiscuous side of the Sexual Revolution as a positive development, and those have rejected the Playboy Philosophy, seeing the relations between men and women as a "war," while still maintaining a woman's right to sexual autonomy. This, admittedly over simplified, outlook would be represented by the likes of Gloria Steinem. I'm on the record as being an admirer of Ms. Paglia, but I think she is wrong on this point. But at the same time I don't think that the Gloria Steinems of the world know what their talking about either. All the sides in this debate that we've examined so far miss the point because all of them begin with a deprived view of human sexuality - the very thing that they claim to know the best. 

In Tickets, Please! the women respond so violently to John Thomas when they finally get the chance because there is something inside them that knows instinctively that their dignity had been violated. Annie was in love, but the others had various levels of affection that were somewhat less drastic, nonetheless being used is being used, as I wrote before. On a gut level they knew that sex is more than pleasure, and forges a deeper bond between people. It is the moment when two people are quite literally naked in their vulnerability to one another. Even if it isn't a conscious concern, it is the only human act that can lead directly to a new life. Men are not always actively aware of this little fact. Women are much more attuned to this reality by the very cycles of their body. Men more easily focus on the pleasure component, along with some vague notion of bonding. Women tend to see the bigger picture, guarding their gift more securely. 

Lawrence wrote this story around 1920 as women were entering into the British workforce in ways similar to how they would later in the United States during World War II. It reflects the social changes that bringing women and men together in this way created, both sexes having to learn new ways of relating with one another. The story also reflects Lawrence's belief that men and women are at war with each other, and his own inability to understand the feminine mystique. 

While the sexual revolution was still forty years away, mores were already changing, and we can see the pratfalls foreshadowed in this brief tale. Since sex, at least for John Thomas, is unrelated to marriage and family, he (and we can assume the author) can't understand fully why these women react as they do. In some ways, he is the proto-Hefner, who can't understand why these women don't get the fact that they are sexual beings free to enjoy sexual pleasure responsibility free. John Thomas learns the hard way that there is no such thing a free love. Irregardless of half backed "philosophies" or pharmaceutical miracles, there is something in our very being, of men and women, but I believe especially of women, that knows that sex is more than either recreation or a commodity. It is the spark of life, the embrace that forms one flesh out of two. 

So we have two realities at work here: the long standing practice of powerful men using their status to force vulnerable women into sex, and the more recent development of the Sexual Revolution that sought to make men and women equal, not only in dignity but in the ability to treat their sexual partners in an undignified way. In both cases it's the man who wins, even if his intentions are not to do harm, or the woman believes herself to be empowered. From the contemporary man's stand point there is no reason for the woman not to go along for the ride. Contraception has taken away the danger of pregnancy, and if for some reason the devise or pill fails there's always the abortion clinic. And if you act soon enough there are even pills that will bring it off, as TS Eliot put it. With sex divorced from it's natural consequences all is possible. So why not use it as recreation, or in the case of the movie producer, as a currency? It's only sex, after all; no more significant than going skiing or shaking hands.

The answer begins with acknowledging that men and women are certainly equal in dignity, but different in their respective ways of relating with the world and with one another. Traditional social-religious constructs were established, as Mona Charen points out, to curb the darker instincts of men. Can they be taken to unnecessary extremes? Yes they can, but the Vice President's policy, for instance, of not even eating lunch alone with a woman not his wife, in public or private, isn't some puritanical hang up, it's common sense. It's one less question he'll have to answer, one less whisper murmured behind his back and, possibly one less temptation he needs to struggle with. Women have their own ways of using sexuality to their advantage, no doubt about it. But whether it's the promiscuous culture created by the Sexual Revolution or the toxic culture that's held sway in Hollywood for better than a century, women are victimized to a far greater extent than men. Holding on to healthy, sensible boundaries in how men and women socially interact is a passé idea whose time has come.

The second thing is to reunite in our collective consciousness the connection between sex, childbearing and family. Sex is only a mystery to us because we have disconnected these three things from one another on both a practical and intellectual level. It's no mystery why we know that sexual assault is repulsive and odious. But my experience as a priest, in the confessional or giving spiritual direction, is that even women in committed, consensual relationships begin to feel used in short order. Even those who otherwise claim to be liberated feel an inner disquiet, to put it mildly, wondering if all their boyfriend or lovers wants from them is their body. These women are unhappy, dissatisfied, trapped in a malaise, but are often slow to acknowledge the connection between their existential angst and extra-matital sex. Sex is only truly freeing when it is reserved for and yes limited by, marriage and family life. 

The situation in Hollywood is distinct from that of issues connected with the sexual revolution, though they do intersect. That established, powerful men would abuse their position of authority is nothing new. We have examples that go back at least as far as the biblical story of Susana. That this age old trope is mixed with the relative novelty of a promiscuous culture only makes the perpetrators feel more emboldened, as if the victim's giving in is some sort of fait accompli. The solution doesn't reside alone in recapturing the idea of proper social boundaries, or of coming to understand the legitimate differences between men and women. I haven't written about it here, but the proper understanding of original sin wouldn't hurt either (an article for another day). There needs to be concrete reforms, and an entire change in corporate culture. That this is how business has always been done will make it difficult, but not impossible, and I hope it succeeds. 

I hope it succeeds because I love the cinema. It's been for me an endless source of not just entertainment but, at its very best, of deep meditations on life, a different way of looking at reality. It's the thing that all great art has in common. And yeah, I enjoy movies where things blowed up real good, too. What the film industry needs to do is to get back to what the craft and art of film making is all about. To recapture the deeper reasons why people become actors and directors and writers. As Bette Davis once put it, the fame and the perks are of course the rewards of making it, and should be enjoyed with gratitude. First though an actor has to love to work - to get out on the stage and inhabit a role and make a performance come alive. There is nothing wrong with wanting to make a profit, but first must come the story, the beauty, the art. If Hollywood can reform itself, find its soul, it can be such a great instrument of good, rather than the meat market it has become, and in some ways always has been. 

While I don't agree that the dramatic arts is the only profession that celebrates what it means to live a life, it is a powerful one. I leave you with Viola Davis' acceptance speech from this year's Oscars. Here she touches upon what values Hollywood needs to find in order to forge lasting reform, and fulfill its important mission. 

Tom Petty 1950-2017: An Appreciation

Tom Petty is quite possibly the most under appreciated figure in late 20th century rock music; not because his music isn't popular, but because it's so taken for granted. He did something very rare: he remained relevant, as far as the music charts went, for better than two decades - an eternity in pop music. He had remained a steady concert draw, even after his hit making days came to an end around the turn of the millennium. He stayed so prominent for so long without chasing trends or fads. He wrote and played, along with his band the Heartbreakers, simple, durable rock and roll in the tradition of the Byrds, the Rolling Stones and the Beatles - but he never seemed to be copying. The influences were there, but the songs were always 100% Tom Petty. 

After nearly a decade toiling in obscurity, Petty hit it big in the heart of the disco / post-punk / new wave era of the late '70's, but wasn't punk or new wave, much less disco. He wrote songs of heartbreak, longing and, defiance - probably the thing that he had most in common with the punks - oftentimes sprinkled with a bit of ironic humor. Although he grew disillusioned with the record industry, a frustration that crept into his later songs, I remember and cherish his music for it's deep emotion and life affirming quality. There were flashier acts, more innovative artists, but long after their novelties faded away, there was always Tom Petty - steady, reliable, easy to take for granted. 

Out side of the Heartbreakers he worked with musicians as diverse as George Harrison, Bob Dylan, the Grateful Dead, Stevie Nicks and Johnny Cash, just to name a few. Dave Grohl made his first appearance after Kurt Cobain's death playing drums behind Petty on Saturday Night Live.   But he didn't just mingle with rock royalty. In the 2000's he reformed his first band, the barley remembered Mudcrutch just because he felt like playing good old fashioned country tinged rock with old friends from back home. 

Petty was obviously influenced by the British Invasion of the 1960's, a movement that saw UK artists take American music and sell it back to the US. It's slightly ironic that he broke in England first, showing them what American music was really all about - reclaiming it, infusing it with American authenticity that those others could only approximate. 

He wasn't "Country Rock," but he was proud of his Southern roots, and his songs reflected the rebel ethos. He respected his elders, but he wasn't going to be held down by them. As I wrote, he grew frustrated with the music industry, where, as he put it, selling a million units was still seen as a failure. He wrote songs openly contemptuous of the corporate culture that was stifling pop music's creative impulses. Some have suggested that the relative failure of his Last DJ album was an act of revenge by his label that didn't vigorously promote it, and corporate radio that didn't play it. Undaunted, he kept performing to sold out arenas and recorded the music he believed in.

Always, we must remember that Tom Petty was a man. He had his ups and downs and personal issues. He was a father and a grandfather, who was looking forward to cutting back on touring to spend time with his family. His last tour ended just this past week, and he figured it would be the last major run around the concert circuit he would take. That he wouldn't have that time to enjoy the fruits of his labor, and the things that really matter in this life, is the saddest part of his death two days ago at age 66. 

I don't know what Tom Petty's religious views were, but amid the very confused press coverage on the day he died, there was a report that a hospital chaplain was called to his bedside. He was unconscious, by all accounts, but that those close to him thought that this was something he would want is a great comfort to me. I was angry because, as I wrote, the various press outlets, in their haste to want to get the scoop, reported prematurely that he had died. Amid the fake news I hope that this little detail was true. 

Thomas Earl Petty
October 20, 1950 - October 2, 2017
Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon him. May his soul, and all the souls of the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, pest in peace. AMEN