Would Rothko have appreciated Deneuve?

I don't know about him, but I always have.  A wonderful actress.  "Indochine," a great film.  I know, Sidney, there is no bikini, but…  I don't remember the CS bikini, but I do remember the Canadian lady.  

On to Rothko.  I never thought of him as any sort of Zionist or Zionist prophet.  I think of him as a mystic, a man trying to see beyond "the veil."  There is a wonderful Rothko hanging in the big art museum in Kansas City.  When I was spending a lot of time at the Army schools at Ft. Leavenworth I would go and stand a yard from the painting for rather long periods of time.  That is how he wanted people to look at his work.  His search for the perfect killed him, killed him by his own hand.

There must be quite a few of his things in the Guggenheim.  Next time I am up there…  pl 

This entry was posted in Film, Fine Art. Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to Would Rothko have appreciated Deneuve?

  1. Fitzhugh says:

    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!

  2. Matthew says:

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

  3. Jackie says:

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

  4. Charles I says:

    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.

  5. Ronald says:

    Have you seen the Rothko chapel in Houston?
    I was impressed. The nearby de Menil collection had some nice Rothko’s, too.

  6. ked says:

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

  7. Patrick Lang says:

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

  8. david says:

    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).

  9. Patrick Lang says:

    But have you seen the Rothko? pl

  10. david says:

    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.

  11. frank durkee says:

    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.

  12. YT says:

    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.

  13. johnf says:

    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.

  14. Sidney O. Smith III says:

    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.

  15. Andrew says:

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

  16. Doesn’t he do more straight line angular geometric “modern” stuff?
    Not sure he could do justice to her “classical” curves…

  17. Vargas would have done the right “artistic” thing by her no doubt….

  18. 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.)

  19. Larry Kart says:

    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?

  20. Sidney O. Smith III says:

    Hi CWZ
    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.

  21. Matt says:

    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.

  22. Patrick Lang says:

    Larry Kart
    How about the 2nd one? pl

  23. 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…

  24. David says:

    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.

  25. Larry Kart says:

    Now THAT one is for real!
    Given Clifford Kiracofe’s post, though, I certainly have no objection to the first image being genuine, too — it just doesn’t look right to me, for the reasons I mentioned. Also, I’m not familiar with the workings of EBay. When things are listed for sale there, are the claims made about those items vetted in some trustworthy manner?

  26. alnval says:

    Col. Lang:
    Without Deneuve, Rothko would be meaningless. Unlike a kazoo band which only gives respite she and her brethren, e.g., Madsen restore the tingle.

  27. Charles I says:

    David and Clifford, the Photographer is to my eye the most fundamental technical, artistic and spiritual variable in any photograph.

  28. Fred says:

    How did I manage to miss this post? Especially since I’m heading to Paris in the spring.

  29. FRED! WOW! Thanks for reminding me of this post!
    The 20th Century definitely had some wonderful female role models.
    READING Simon Schama’s “CITIZENS” and thinking of Deneuve as the “Marianne”!

  30. I should have made clear that “Citizens” is an in-depth discussion of the French Revolution 1789-1799 when Napoleon announced the official end of the Revolution.
    And of course having difficulty leaving this post.

Comments are closed.