Book Review - 'Liquid Memory - Why Wine Matters,' by Jonathan Nossiter - Review

For the last three decades, I have enjoyed the better part of an interesting bottle of wine with nearly every dinner and many a lunch. I know my vintages and rarely mistake a Burgundy for a Bordeaux. In short, I am a wine enthusiast — though not a wine snob and never, I hope, a wine bore.

Skip to next paragraph

Illustration by Michael Bierut

LIQUID MEMORY

Why Wine Matters

By Jonathan Nossiter

262 pp. Farrar, Straus & Giroux. $26

Related

Excerpt: ‘Liquid Memory’ (October 16, 2009)

So I’d heard about the big controversy that has been roiling the wine world recently. It’s about tradition versus modernity. It’s about subtly complex wines versus “fruit bombs.” It’s (supposedly) about big money versus ethics. Above all, it’s about globalized taste versus something called terroir.

What is terroir? That is not easy to say. It is a French word, and everyone agrees that it is untranslatable. The disagreement is over whether it exists. To its defenders — notably the Old World winemakers of France, Italy and Germany — terroir refers to the ineffable way that soil, light, topography and microclimate conspire, over generations of human stewardship, to endow a wine with its unique soul. It’s a sense of place you can taste. To its detractors — especially the New World winemakers of the Americas and Australia — terroir is a marketing slogan dressed up as a poetic reverie. In other words, it’s a hoax — and they should know, since they’ve had precious little luck getting any terroir into their own wines.

Nobody has done more to keep this debate on the boil than Jonathan Nossiter — filmmaker, former sommelier at various New York restaurants (including Bal­thazar) and son of the foreign correspondent Bernard Nossiter. Like his father, Nossiter takes pleasure in goring sacred cows. A few years ago he made a subversive documentary about the wine world called “Mondovino,” which was nominated for a Palme d’Or at the 2004 Cannes Film Festival. Now, in “Liquid Memory,” he extends his brief against the global cabal — made up of power-mad wine critics and consultants, arriviste vintners, pretentious restaurateurs, greedy marketers and rich collectors with Americanized palates — that (he thinks) is destroying the tradition of terroir.

This can be an irritating book. It is full of little eruptions of pomposity (“Wine is bedrock truth, blood of the earth”) and self-regard (“I sensed that I’d made the right choice in opting . . . for taste over power”). But it can also be extremely entertaining, especially when Nossiter’s hackles are raised, which (happily for the reader) is a lot of the time.

He takes us on a scathingly opinionated tour of some of Paris’s most renowned restaurants and wine shops. We cheer him on as he picks an argument with the sommelier at the fashionable Atelier de Joël Robuchon, where, he is outraged to find, one of the new-style wines he deplores is priced at 803 euros (“The extra three euros seems deliriously arbitrary: a Gombrowiczian — or Duchampian — touch on top of a Marx Brothers gesture”). He ends up likening this would-be gastronomic temple to a Red Lobster.

As a restorative, Nossiter arranges a rendezvous with the radiant British actress (and longtime Parisian) Charlotte Rampling, who has appeared in one of his films. Together the two friends sip an honest Chablis at Le Dôme, an enduringly authentic Montparnasse fish restaurant cum literary hangout. “Charlotte, who is always surprising, fixes me with her beguilingly aqueous gaze,” he writes, eliciting in this reader a pang of jealousy.

In among such adventures, Nossiter makes a passionate case for the cultural importance of wine. Disdaining “winespeak,” he uses literary and historical metaphors. A Bordeaux wine, for instance, is structured like “a hefty novel,” whereas a Burgundy has the “staccato lyricism” of a poem. (That sounds pretentious, but when I tried it out on my wine buddies they thought it hit the mark.)

He also tells us about his taste. Here is what he likes: wines that are low in alcohol and high in “wild, exhilarating acidity”; wines that are light and aromatic; “skanky” wines that are “unpredictable” and “ornery” wines that “provoke an emotion”; wines “fully expressive of a place and its history.”

Here is what he hates: rich, fat, sweet, super-concentrated, overripe, jam-dense, high-alcohol, oaky, inky-colored, vanilla-y wines with no sense of place or identity.

And here is why he’s angry: since the late 1970s, the wine world has been trending away from the former and toward the latter, in a process of global homogenization that, he claims, is erasing local identity and historical memory.

One of the main culprits, in Nossiter’s eyes, is the enormously influential American critic Robert Parker, the so-called “emperor of wine.” Parker grades wines from all over the world on a numerical scale of 50 to 100, like in elementary school. Consistently among his highest-scoring wines (which consequently fetch astronomical prices on the international market) are the big, sweet, high-alcohol fruit bombs. Nossiter blames Parker, along with the winemakers and consultants who hew to his judgments, for infantilizing taste by directing it toward “sweet and easy things.” Even in France, wines are being made to please an American palate attuned to soft drinks and hard liquor. Nossiter’s vendetta against Parker is hair-raisingly comprehensive, taking in everything from the mega-critic’s “nonsensical, frequently ungrammatical” tasting notes to his “blandly kitschy suburban home” adorned with autographed pictures of Ronald Reagan, no less.

Confronted with this polemic, one might be tempted to shrug and say chacun son goût. What’s wrong with liking rich, jammy wines that “make statements” in preference to subtle, delicate ones that “ask questions”? But Nossiter insists that this is not just a matter of subjective taste. Terroir, he submits, is an objective value. And, toward the end of the book, as he tours the Burgundy region of France, he does his best to show how this value ­arises from a long historical symbiosis among family, landscape and vine.

Nossiter didn’t completely win me over. I still like a fruit bomb now and then. And I had to wince at some of his rhetorical flights, like “Without terroir, we will all lose all freedom and individuality.” But his book did enrich my experience of wine — I now drink it more slowly, for one thing — and Nossiter’s racy rudeness left me half drunk with pleasure. In fact, if this book were a bottle of wine, I’d describe it as having a firm structure, a core of mature but voluptuous fruit (Charlotte Rampling!), lots of bracing acidity, with just a hint of manure on the nose.

Jim Holt is the author of “Stop Me If You’ve Heard This: A History and Philosophy of Jokes.” He is writing a book about the puzzle of existence.

Sign in to Recommend More Articles in Books » A version of this article appeared in print on October 18, 2009, on page BR17 of the New York edition.

Loading mentions Retweet
Comments (0)
Posted 1 month ago

Forgetting how to forget

Forgetting an undervalued blessing

— You can’t keep all of the past in a backpack or purse

all of the time. It’s heavy and what’s worse,

it wouldn’t leave room for much else . . .

-Miller Williams, “Memory” There are some songs that, if my guard is down, knee me in the gut. A lot of them are usual suspects, but at least one of them is one you’ve likely never heard, a song called “Karen Carpenter” written by Matt Witte, the frontman for a New Jersey band called New Blood Revival.

The title has little to do with the lyric, which is really about the sentimental education of a guy not unlike myself after his divorce from a woman he refers to as “Miss Oklahoma.” Even though he’s gotten over her and he wishes her the best, her memory still snags on pointed moments.

It’s a simple, eloquent piece of music I wish I could play for you, or at least direct you to (you’d think someone somewhere would have posted it on the Internet, but apparently they haven’t) but at the same time I understand it’s unlikely to affect you in the same way it strikes me. I can’t dissociate Witte’s craft from my perception of the work as something authentic-it feels to me so naked, painful and honest that I have a tough time believing it’s notautobiographical, and that the specifics aren’t true. It feels like extruded memory rather than an alloy of experience and imagination.

I could be wrong, Witte might have made the whole thing up, but I recognize his grudging details as the sort of things people remember, random artifacts pulled from the ruins of a devastated civilization.

We are built to forget, to let go of the overwhelming vastness of the past, retaining only the barest impressions-often misshapen or fetishized-of our past. Forgetting is a kind of knife that shapes our history, that whittles away all that is deemed superfluous, the way we begin to make sense of the world. In order to function, we forget almost everything.

We do this automatically, and instantaneously. Most of the data perceived by our eyes is dropped before it ever registers in our brain. We catch a flash that resolves into a blur that we recognize as a black dogtrotting down the street in the rain. Thing come into focus because the interference falls away, because our minds suppress the ambient noisiness of the natural world-we tune into a narrow channel of “reality,” and we reconstruct a narrative that conforms to the selective evidence we admit.

To be unable to forget would be unbearable; we would be rendered paralyzed by detail. In Jorge Luis Borges’ short story “Funes, the Memorious,” the title character receives the dubious gift of perfect memory after he falls off his horse and hits his head:

“He remembered the shapes of the clouds in the south at dawn on the 30th of April of 1882, and he could compare them in his recollection with the marbled grain in the design of a leather-bound book which he had seen only once, and with the lines in the spray which an oar raised in the Rio Negro on the eve of the battle of Quebracho . . .”

Funes is tortured by his perfect memory-he recognizes the second-by-second aging of his own body because he is able to compare the present appearance of his hands to how they seemed a moment ago. Perfect recall has rendered him incapable of generalizing, of ignoring the differences he necessarily perceives between one thing at one particular moment and another (or the same) thing in the next moment.

“With no effort he had learned English, French, Portuguese, and Latin, ” Borges writes. “I suspect, however, that he was not very capable of thought. To think is to forget differences, generalize, make abstractions. In the teeming world of Funes, there were only details, almost immediate in their presence.”

Funes had no way to organize the world into broad classes, only the myriad particulars of a world constantly reconstituting itself in slightly different ways. He was strapped in a world of experience, an onrushing stream of facts and details from which it was impossible to extricate himself. He could not pull himself out of the flood, to gain higher ground and perspective.

Maybe this is a long way to get around to what is essentially a book review, a fascinating work of social and technological criticism by Viktor Mayer-Schonberger called Delete: The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age (Princeton, $24.95). The book explores the ways various technologies have altered the human relationship with memory, shifting us from a society where the default was to forget (and consequently forgive) to one where it is impossible to avoid the ramifications of a permanent record.

Our ability to forget, Mayer-Schonberger notes, is being challenged by the explosion of easily searchable digital memory. The Internet has become a limitless warehouse for storing any and all sorts of information, no matter how trivial or potentially embarrassing.

This has some rather obvious implications-most of us have already learned to censor ourselves in e-mails and any other communications we imagine might be stored eternally on the ’Net. But more importantly, the digital off-loading of recollection from our fallible, imperfect minds to cybernetic sources threatens to change the relationship we have with our memories. We might begin to trust them less, to impute more power to the digital record than the emotionally encoded ones. We might begin to recognize our memory for what it is-an unreliable, self-aggrandizing witness susceptible to self-pity and rationalizations.

Mayer-Schonberger has a lot to say about what we might do to “humanize” our technology, and to switch the default back to forgetting from remembering, and a lot of it makes sense.

As for me, I prefer reality filtered through the necessarily distorting lens of the mind-weather-beaten, mortal memories that flap like prayer flags until, like the rest of us, they are gone on the wind.

pmartin@arkansasonline.com

Perspective, Pages 80 on 10/25/2009

Loading mentions Retweet
Comments (0)
Posted 1 month ago

Joss Stone, Colour Me Free

Joss Stone
Colour Me Free
EMI

B


While her record company reportedly isn’t excited about professionalthrowback Joss Stone’s latest and delayed its release by a year it’s byfar her most solid and rewarding album to date, a nicely programmedcollection of Dusty Springfield-esque soul music that only slips alittle in the second act, when she attempts to meld her anachronisticpersona with the fresh new sounds the young folks like: Hercollaboration with Nas, “Governmentalist” has it’s own slinky funk inspite of the clunky rap(“Governmentalists killed the Kennedys, I heardthat Joss Stone got the remedy) that defaces the track like auralgraffiti, “I Believe to My Soul” sounds too much like a blues night jamto merit serious comment, and “Girlfiend on Demand” is a limp re-writeof the soft-centered Elton John classic “Your Song.” Stone is at herbest when she’s at her rawest — if her instinct is to fight the powersthat (consistently) overproduce her, her heart, at least, is in theright place.

— Philip Martin

Loading mentions Retweet
Comments (0)
Posted 1 month ago

Notes on a proposed essay on a writer named Donald Harington:

Not since Beethoven has a deaf man made such music.
We can’t say how it is, so let us imagine how it must be. It beginswith seeing; with finding and sorting, with some magpie instinct, tocollect that which is sharp and interesting, to apprehend the shadowsand hauntings, the nuance of the human heart.
Maybe the compensatory rumor is true, maybe when the deafness descendedon 12-year old Donald his eyes grew more acute, he began to see more,to notice and retain, to read the gestures and to feel the beat of thelanguage that rained all about his dry eardrums.
Maybe he watched and saw, insulated in his enforced stillness, catchingthe gist (and more) of what is unsayable but true.
We don’t know, but it is a reasonable guess. What we do know is ittakes a stuff like courage to gin what you’ve gathered through thatblack box in your head we might call the novelistic imagination, toprocess it and drizzle it, hot and vital, like blood on those virginalwhite sheets.
Check that — Harington is no action painter, no Jackson Pollockdrizzling on his canvas. Some writers, they write like that, it allcomes out like forensic blood splatters on the wall (the writer’s palmprint inevitably, incriminatingly, on the bedpost) and sometimes youcan get caught up in the surge, the adrenal pull that pushes forwardand drafts you along. (You move through 100 pages in an hour andsurface, gasping, your lungs screaming, a delirium in your head.)
Harington is not that kind of writer. He is — as befits a professorof art history, which is what he is when he’s in Clark Kent mode — apainterly writer, but he’s a painter who knows how to draw. He does ahouse and it’s unmistakably a house, more real than most houses thebank holds notes on. But it’s usually more than a house too, becauseHarington builds his worlds — there’s more than one, though they havethe same name — of haunted stuff.
Miller Williams, the poet, the Fayetteville neighbor of Haringtonand colleague on the University of Arkansas faculty, knows the bestpoems are constructed from words with ghosts, which are haloed byconnotation. Harington works with the same material; as ordinary asthose words might appear on their own, in concert he gets them tochoir, to make that strange and beautiful music we started off talkingabout.
How he does it is his business, maybe a trade secret, maybesomething as inexplicable as a knack. More likely it is harder than itappears, more likely the plainsong is wrought from hours of internalmessiness and discombobulation — a passion of self-doubt and deepworry, of the kind of work we might all recognize. How he does it wemight not know — he has a hearing aid and a helpmate and friends andstudents — but he does it, and we are glad.

Or we ought to be. Some of us are. But in every story that’swritten about Harington there’s some note taken of the fact that he’snot rich, he’s not the bigdeal-kahuna writer with the movie deals andthe entourage of bare-chested Chinese boys bearing him aloft on asilk-covered litter.
Fred Chappell, the poet and critic, once called Harington "anundiscovered continent" and everyone repeats it because they wishthey’d thought of it, because it seems apt and wise. Because if youread Harington — and admittedly not everybody has — you start tounderstand pretty quickly that he is large, he contains multitudes,that there’s an Yoknapatawphian universe looming within his work. It’snot that he’s undiscovered — Harington has been tracked over andmapped, not by too many but by a few discerning readers, probably thosestrong readers that Harold Bloom talks about, because you’ve got to bepretty hardy to make it from The Cherry Pit (1965) to With (2004). Morethan a dozen books, maybe a million haunted words.
Not that it’s such a chore hiking the great unknown Harington; it’sbeautiful country, but it’s a long way. It’s not a small continent andit has lots of mountains and you get way up there in the rarefied air —you can get loopy. Giddy. Free to think it all through again. You canfind yourself feeling a little bit like Nail Chism in The Choiring ofthe Trees (1990), making that long walk back to Stay More (kind of likethat other fellow in that Cold Mountain book/movie but never mind).
Harington isn’t rough going in the way a lot of the other guys whofool around with this metafiction stuff can be (as worthy and fine awriter as Harington’s buddy Jack Butler is, more than one reader had toback up and take a good running start to get through the first quarteror so of Living in Little Rock With Miss Little Rock), but he isn’t allabout reassuring whatever readers he may have either. Things can gonasty with Harington, they can get black. He doesn’t let you off thateasy; he’s a humanist, but he understands what you get up to when youthink no one is looking.

Can we go on in this vein a little longer? Sure, this is anewspaper, after all, and we’re not in the business of alienatingreaders who’ve never heard of Donald Harington and couldn’t care lessabout the way his books open you up in the head and shake you like aplayful puppy who might someday get some brain disease and turn into anunpredictable biter.
Sure, this isn’t conventional, they might expect the life story oran interview or at the very least a book report on the new product, butthere’s a theory we’d like to test out. Maybe newspaper readers reallylike to read, maybe they’re not just panning for little tidbits theycan toss out at parties, maybe they don’t much need someone to tellthem about what happens to the little girl who is — to put it one way —kidnapped by the retired state trooper and installed in his weird houseup in the mountains of Newton County.
Maybe they can read the book for themselves, maybe they can go tothe bookstore or online and buy a brace of Donald Harington novels andsee for themselves. Maybe that would be best for all concerned — nodoubt it’ll be good for Harington, who would make a little jack withouthaving to endure the indignity of some hack digging into his oeuvre anddrawing critical conclusions about what it’s all supposed to mean.
All critics can really do in the face of a talent like this is go,"Oh, wow, this guy is smarter than me and he writes better too." Andthat’s sometimes hard for critics to do, though they do tend to do abetter job with Harington than they do with some others. Even so, anyhonest writer will tell you that a book review or a critical essay isjust another opportunity to write, to show off, which leads one towonder how come Harington never seems to be doing just that.
He’s always there, a tender, patient and sometimes wicked god,beaming down mostly beneficence on his creation. Sometimes he’s eventhere in name, as a minor character, hidden behind an elaborate yettransparent Nabokovian disguise (we see you, "Agathon N.O. Dirndl,"poking around the margins of Ekaterina in your fancy-schmancy anagram).
It’s not hard to pick up on some of the influences — old Vlad N.chief among them — but the problem with deconstructing Harington isroughly the same as deconstructing a butterfly. You can pin it to aboard, you can stretch out the wings for inspection, but in doing soyou extinguish the animating force. Harington becomes more and morelike any other writer, any other stringertogether of words in English.You learn nothing from diagramming his sentences or charting his plots,you pull the flesh away from the skeleton and you’ve got meat and bonebut buddy, the soul done fled.
Reading Harington requires an act of faith — you have to believe inthe invisible and ineffable, in the evanescent quality that makes usall more than a complicated adventure in chemistry. You have to believein the final irreducibility of things like a writer’s voice, like hisability to aspirate — to breathe life into — his characters. You havegot to believe that language, when it’s done right, is real music, andthat the rhythm and the phrasing and the voice have to work togetherand that there’s a genuine mystery to the why and how of it that can’tbe properly taught.
But maybe you can feel it, maybe it crosses the back of your necklike a cool holler shadow or catches you up in your throat and makessomething hot and moist develop in your eye. Maybe it rings some tuningfork in you, makes it shiver like a crazy bone, just the way the oldcodger rammed those two unexpected words together — like a kid playingwith his toy fire trucks — and sparks fell out.
It’s like any mind trick, you’ve got to make yourself available,you’ve got to hold yourself out as willing. You’ve got to be willing tostart walking, to pick up your bindle and hobo it through Harington,maybe not knowing much about Newton County or the Ingledews or thatcrazy Russian fellow who wrote the dirty book about the little trampygirl. Just go, for once in your life, go — it’s worth it, that’s allthe advice you need from a critic. Go get lost in Harington.

Loading mentions Retweet
Comments (0)
Posted 1 month ago

Donald Fehr to Receive $11 Million Compensation Package As He Leaves MLBPA

Donald FehrDonald Fehr, head of the Major League Baseball Players Association since 1983, will apparently ride of into the sunset with the equivalent of a Golden Parachute.

Fehr announced on June 22 that he would step down from his post sometime before the end of March next year, although an official date has yet to be determined.  As reported by ESPN.com, according to a memo sent to the players last month, Fehr will receive a package worth $11 million when he finally takes his leave.

While the sum came as a surprise to some, including a number of players according to Curits Granderson, a member of one of the two union committees that reviewed the compensation package and recommended it to the union membership for a vote, the total does not appear to be unreasonable under the circumstances.  Fehr has long refused raises offered by the union and his salary has been substantially below that of his contemporaries.

According to records filed with the U.S. Department of Labor, Fehr made $1 million a year from 2001-2008.  His union counterparts at the NBA and the NFL saw their salaries increase from $1,282,475 to $3,465,933 and $900,000 to $3,774,577, respectively, during the same period.

Granderson told ESPN.com that he estimated 97 percent of the membership approved the deal.  “At first there was a little ‘Why is it so much?’” said Granderson.  “But as soon as everyone found out he hadn’t had a raise and then the comparison in salary to Bud Selig’s, I think the overwhelming majority voted in favor of it.”  Selig is reported to have made $18 million last year.

Fehr told ESPN.com, “Obviously, I’m pleased and grateful for the vote they made.”  The long-time union leader hasn’t announced his plans after he retires from his position with the players association, nor is it known if he will sever those ties completely.

OTHER NEWS FROM THE BUSINESS OF SPORTS NETWORK

(THE BIZ OF FOOTBALL)

(THE BIZ OF HOCKEY)

(THE BIZ OF BASKETBALL)

Jordan Kobritz is a staff member of the Business of Sports Network. He is a former attorney, CPA, and Minor League Baseball team owner. He is an Assistant Professor of Sport Management at Eastern New Mexico University and teaches the Business of Sports at the University of Wyoming.

Follow The Biz of Baseball on Twitter Twitter

Facebook

Follow the Business of Sports Network on Facebook

Comments (0)Add Comment
feed

Subscribe to this comment's feed


Write comment


busy
< Prev   Next >

Loading mentions Retweet
Comments (0)
Posted 1 month ago

Paul Westerberg-Daydream Believer

Loading mentions Retweet
Comments (0)
Posted 1 month ago

Limbaugh Suggests NYT’s Revkin Should “Kill Himself” : CJR

Loading mentions Retweet
Comments (0)
Posted 1 month ago

Dublin's Revenge

Loading mentions Retweet
Comments (0)
Posted 1 month ago

Excerpt: 'Masterpiece Comics' : NPR

Loading mentions Retweet
Comments (0)
Posted 1 month ago

CRITICAL MASS: Cohen soothes the savage breast

CRITICAL MASS: Cohen soothes the savage breast

— “We’re sore in need of matches.” - Leonard Cohen, at the Isle of Wight, Aug. 31, 1970

It was 4 in the morning when they came for the Jew. They took him from his trailer and led him onto the stage - Ratso Rizzo in a safari suit, armed with only his acoustic guitar, his compassion, his pitchy baritone, a couple of hours sleep and a few Nashville cats Bob Johnston had rounded up.

Johnston was a record producer; he’d worked with Johnny Cash, Simon & Garfunkel and, most famously, Bob Dylan (it’s Johnston Dylan’s addressing when he asks, “Is it rollin’, Bob?” at the beginning of “To Be Alone With You”). But he loved Leonard Cohen, whose second album, 1968’s Songs From a Room, he’d produced. When Cohen asked him to put together a touring band, he was happy tocomply.

Johnston promised Cohen the world’s best piano player, but Ratso said no, he didn’t want that, he wanted Johnston, and that it was a deal breaker. The European tour was off if his producer wouldn’t go with him.

And so Johnston became a piano player, although it probably cost him the chance to work with Dylan again; even though he didn’t play all that well. He could only claw out chord forms, fill in with a crescendo, nothing fancy.

But maybe that didn’t matter since Cohen didn’t sing that well either. He needed the backup singers - Corlynn Hanney, Susan Musmanno and Donna Washburn - to prop up his tender, wandering warbles.

Cohen was all right on his own with his guitar and his eccentric sense of timing in a coffee shop or on TV, with the camera sitting at his feet and staring worshipfully up. But for an outdoor show he’d need, at the least, Johnston’s session pros to make a grander sort of noise. The little band that took to calling itself The Army (as in “you and what army?”) consisted of Charlie Daniels (yes, that Charlie Daniels) on bass and violin; Ron Cornelius on lead guitar;Bubba Fowler, who played bass when Daniels didn’t and otherwise added some banjo; and Johnston, who couldn’t play, on keyboards.

At the Isle of Wight, they’d face a crowd of (allegedly) 600,000, more than were at Woodstock. Furthermore, there was an ozone of militancy in the air. The ’60s were over, Sharon Tate had been butchered and the middle-class pilgrims who took the ferry from the English mainland felt entitled. Less than a tenth of them actually paid the 3 pounds (about $7.20) admission for the five-day festival. The rest had stormed in, tearing down the fences and leading one of the festival’s organizers, Rikki Farr, to launch a tirade from the stage: “We put on this festival, you [expletives] with a lot of love and you want to break down our walls and want to destroy it,you go to hell.”

During Joni Mitchell’s set, an anarchist charged the stage and seized her microphones, reducing her to tears as she pled: “Listen a minute, will ya? I get my feelings off through my music. You’re acting like tourists, give us some respect!”

Kris Kristofferson, obviously wounded by a crowd that alternately ignored him, jeered and pelted him with bottles, stormed off the stage in the middle of “Me and Bobby McGee.”

Even for the louder acts, it was hit and miss - The Who had matched the crowd’s ferocity, turned it back on them. The Doors looked torpid, but Jimi Hendrix seemed to machine-gun them into submission. But, near the end of his set, they (literally) set the stage afire.One of the things that they burned was the piano Johnston was intending to play.

Cohen was standing by the stage watching the commotion. When he saw the piano had been destroyed, he told Johnston he was going to take a nap, that they should come and get him when they found a playable keyboard. He went to histrailer to take a nap, leaving the crowd stirred in the dark, roiling in bad feelings and black rain.

When he came out, he was unkempt and shambling. He was 35 years old - a few months older than Elvis - that morning. On the just released CD and DVD, Live at the Isle of Wight 1970 (Columbia/Legacy, $21.98), he looks sacrificial, like Isaac under old Abe’s blade.

We can see what Cohen looked like because Murray Lerner’s cameras were grinding that night. Lerner was at the Isle of Wight at the invitation of the organizers, who wanted him to screen Festival, his Oscar nominated documentary of the Newport Folk Festival.They’d invited him to film the proceedings (although it wasn’t until 1995 that he finally cleared all the legal hurdles and was able to release his feature film Message to Love).

Cohen is introduced as “a novelist, a poet, an author, a singer” and he takes his time coming onstage. He lifts and cradles his guitar, with his back to the audience, and says a few words to the band. Then he turns to the crowd, adjusts the microphone and begins to softly talk to them, starting off with a brief story about his childhood and his father - who died when Cohen was 9 years old - who loved the circus.

“He had a black mustache and a great vest and a pansy in his lapel,” Cohen says.“And he liked the circus better than I did.” But there was one part of the circus that young Leonard loved, when the ringmaster would come out and ask the crowd to light matches, so that they might “locate one another” in the dark. Lerner’s camera searches the pitch-black field, picking up only a few flares here and there. Cohen remarks that there seem to be a lot of people who don’t have matches.

He gazes out and observes, “It’s a large nation, but it’s still weak. Still very weak. It needs to get a lot stronger before it can claim a right to land.” And then, very slowly, he begins to sing the words that Kristofferson once said he wanted as his epitaph: “Like a bird/on a wire/Like a drunk/in a midnight choir/I have tried/in my way/To be free ....”

Some people speak blithely of “miracles,” mistaking statistical improbabilities for special acts of grace. Cohen is probably not a miracle, just an unlikely survivor of dangerous times. It is difficult to imagine a poet - a writer more in the tradition of Mordecai Richler, Saul Bellow and Abraham Moses Klein than Mick Jagger - holding sway over a mob in these days of escalating sensations and callused sensibilities, when pop entertainment skews to the loud and vulgar. But Cohen abides and, at 75, he still performs and they say he is more energetic onstage these days than he ever was as a kid.

He’s funnier now than he was then. He has lightened up even as his voice has darkened. He has seen a lot of miles and acquired the seasoned timbre of an ancient violin. He no longer encounters wild young crowds he has to charm; his people come to him grayheaded and pre-smitten.

But he did it once, nearly 40 years ago. He communed with more than half a million. Call it what you want; he soothed them.

E-mail:

pmartin@arkansasonline.com

Style, Pages 29 on 10/20/2009

Loading mentions Retweet
Comment (1)
Posted 1 month ago