Writings. Thoughts. Musings.

Month: September 2021

Stumbling Across the Legacy of St. Elizabeth Ann Seton

My unexpected rendezvous with a saint I already should have known

I don’t like being stuck in traffic. Who does? So when my digital GPS lady warned me about a tie-up on I-81 and offered me a diversion onto U.S. Route 15 South, I took it. Just to keep moving towards my goal for the day, a cozy AirBNB room on a farmhouse at the lower end of the Shenandoah Valley. That’s where my quest for history was scheduled to start, with a few battlefield markers, remnants of Stonewall Jackson’s legendary campaign. But as so often happens, God had other plans, and for me that meant encountering a different hero.

Chapel interior

After about 20 minutes on Rt. 15, I saw a brown sign for a point of interest: the National Shrine of St. Elizabeth Ann Seton. Since it was right along my way, I decided to make the stop. I’d stretch my legs, make a courtesy visit to the Blessed Sacrament, and maybe get a few snapshots of a nice-looking church. I’m a huge church nerd when I travel. I feel they tell the people’s history, their devotion, their struggle for a better life, better than any collection of museum artifacts. But I had low expectations for Mother Seton, especially out in the nowhere of Emmitsburg, Maryland.  

Did I know who she was? Vaguely. I was in eighth grade at St. Aloysius School in Jersey City, NJ in 1973-4 when the drive for her canonization had reached a fever pitch. She would be the first American-born saint in the Catholic Church. The nuns were elated; they were Daughters—or Sisters—of Charity, and Mother Seton had been their Foundress. But we students, at least at the too-cool-for-school junior high level, didn’t share their euphoria. Not that I had anything against nuns generally or Sisters of Charity in particular. They didn’t hit us like the Sisters of St. Joseph in Bayonne had, but they were boring ladies living dull lives. They taught grammar school all day, then went back to the convent to grade papers while watching The Mod Squad, and who knows what they did during the summer? Now, tell me Roberto Clemente is going into the Baseball Hall of Fame, a player I watched on TV and in person, whose death I read about in the sports pages and even cried over, that’s the kind of induction that would mean something to 13-year-old me.

Plus, there had been an unfortunate changing of the guard at our school. We’d gotten a new principal the previous year, who had canceled a few vaunted traditions, such as honors at graduation. I didn’t care; as a bespectacled runt at the head of the class, I preferred to downplay academics and score social points as a joker. But some kids on the cusp of smartness would really like to have had their smartness affirmed in some small way. Then there was the Spring Musical, an elaborate production which the previous principal had staged as a fundraiser. Every musical number sung by the leads got an encore by a particular class. Thus, every student in the school appeared on stage and parents packed the gym-auditorium to glimpse their little darlings. Well, the new principal put the kibosh on the extravaganza after a dismal staging of The Red Mill flopped badly. There would be no musical for my graduating class. Our Eight Grade teacher, Sister Barbara Ann, not the inspiration for the Beach Boys, offered a compromise: we could do a small play on Mother Seton.

I still remember Connie D. huffing as she pushed past me in crimson indignation, “Every class gets a musical; we get Mother Seton!” I don’t know whether Connie had set her heart on playing Dolly Levi, but she didn’t want the parade to pass her by, and in her mind, Mother Seton had just rained on it. Again, I was totally neutral. For one thing, my lovely boy soprano had gone rogue last year, and I never knew when Alfalfa would show up. For another, I had played Friedrich in The Sound of Music in sixth grade, which had been enough. I still remember Sister Catherine Maurice, who had not studied Stanislavski, bellowing, “You can’t cross in front of her, she’s a lead! Cross behind! There’s no crossing in front of a lead!” and the tearful girl answering, “But then no one will hear me!” It was not an experience I yearned to repeat. The matter soon became moot, as Sr. Barbara forgot all about the Seton play, and the students didn’t dare remind her.

In the fall of 1975, I vaguely remember time set aside to celebrate Mother Seton’s canonization. But aside from “First American Saint,” I don’t recall the Jesuits at my high school filling us in on any details. Maybe there was some chauvinism in the slight. If we wanted inspiration from a saint who had founded an order, we already had St. Ignatius. Mother Seton was a nun who had founded an order of nuns. End of boring story. But how wrong. And how tragically so.

What I found at the Shrine was the life story of a courageous woman, whose courage was at turns genetic, instilled and grasped for desperately at the edge of despair. Elizabeth Ann Bayley was the daughter of a crusading New York physician Richard Bayley, who fought heroically to curb yellow fever outbreaks that periodically ravaged quarters of Manhattan. He travelled to England to study infectious diseases, and returned with vital information about draining swamps to reduce mosquito-borne contagion. Dr. Bayley succumbed to yellow fever, but his work saved countless lives.

Elizabeth’s mother died when she was three, perhaps from complications of childbirth. Her stepmother brought her on charitable rounds, delivering food to the poor. She eventually separated from Elizabeth’s father, taking the five children of their marriage and rejecting the two children of his first marriage. Thus, Elizabeth’s early life was marked by painful separations, a trend that was destined to continue.

In 1794, at the age of 19, Elizabeth married William Magee Seton, a wealthy but sickly trade merchant. His business declined as Jefferson’s embargo on trade and the subsequent War of 1812 devastated the overseas shipping industry. But the worse decline was in his health; as tuberculosis ravaged Seton’s lungs, he desperately sought a cure in the fair climate of Italy. Elizabeth was at his side throughout, reading her Bible and praying ceaselessly. At age 29, she became a widow with five children and no visible means of support. Yet, encouraged by Italian friends, the Protestant Elizabeth felt the call to convert to Catholicism, which she did upon her husband’s death, even though it meant ostracism from a family network that could provide financial support for herself and her children. That decision also placed her in real physical danger, as evidenced by a Protestant attack on her Catholic Church. On Christmas Eve, less than two years after her conversion, a mob was thwarted in its attempt to burn the church.

I could go on. About her children who also died from tuberculosis, and her personal struggle with the disease that took her at age 44. And how in spite of all that was bleak around her, she maintained the optimism and drive to found a religious order in a country where Catholicism was widely reviled. At the tender age of 13, when I was so much more certain about what I knew than I am now, I wouldn’t have granted much credit for starting an organization or keeping it running despite financial hardships. In the years since, I’ve gained an appreciation for those leadership and administrative skills that I sorely lack, and which are sorely lacking in society as a whole.

Mother Setons tomb
The tomb of Elizabeth Seton

All of what I saw at the Shrine made me grieve for the lukewarm catechesis of my formative years. I had been reared on heroes, real and fictional. I idolized Patrick Henry, Robin Hood, King Arthur, Davy Crockett, Abe Lincoln, Jackie Robinson, and the aforementioned Roberto Clemente, who in my lifetime died tragically attempting to deliver relief supplies to impoverished earthquake victims. But in my formation, the heroism of saints got short shrift. They were generally portrayed as well-behaved, pious and dull, maybe because that’s how our parochial schoolteachers would have preferred us. But how much more enriching it would have been to have been told the gritty details of Elizabeth Ann Seton, how she had fought the perils of this Earth to beat a path towards her and our eternal reward?

Exhibit at the Shrine Museum

I was heading to Shenandoah hoping to rekindle my fascination with Stonewall Jackson and his display of tactical brilliance in a lost cause. What I found was a tactically brilliant saint who fought for a winning cause and whose legacy lived on in the women her convent schools trained as nurses and teachers. At the outbreak of the Civil War, 600 battlefield nurses had been commissioned, all of whom were Catholic nuns. Somewhere Elizabeth Seton must have been smiling as her sisters responded to the red landscape of Antietam to nurse the wounded of either side. These “angels of the battlefield” labored tirelessly in an era of bone saws sans antibiotics to give young combatants comfort when they were beyond hope. Among the casualties was a captain of the Forty-first New York Volunteers, French’s Division, Sumner’s Corps. His upward gaze at his angel of mercy must have had profound meaning. For his name was William Seton III, and he was the grandson of Elizabeth Ann Bayley Seton.   

There’s a saying I’ve heard often lately, that no one goes to hell or heaven alone; wherever we go, we take others with us. That’s why one saint’s canonization should be a moment of joy for all believers. And as Christians, we should share that joy at every opportunity, especially with the young who don’t know what they don’t know.

For your consideration:

To learn more about St. Elizabeth Ann Seton’s life, legacy and writings, click this link.

Disclaimer: Links in this column may be affiliate links. If you click on an affiliate link, the author receives a small commission on purchases for a limited time at no additional cost to you. These commissions help ensure future posts. Thank you.

Hollywood’s All-Time Top 5 Male Speaking Voices

The field was once Rich; now there’s Little worth imitating. By Kevin Rush

Rich Little photograph by Barry Morganstein

In July, I had the pleasure of meeting Rich Little, the famous TV and nightclub impressionist who had been so popular during my youth in the 1970s. Those of us gathered for the intimate event spent the first hour before his arrival reminiscing about his many appearances on The Tonight Show, Rowan and Martin’s Laugh-In, The Hollywood Squares, The Mike Douglas Show, Here’s Lucy, and countless other TV shows.

We recalled the many celebrities he had impersonated: John Wayne, Jimmy Stewart, Jack Benny, Carol Channing, and especially his bread and butter, Richard M. Nixon. In fact, Mr. Little was in NYC to portray Nixon in an Off-Broadway play (a rare bird in this age of COVID), called Trial on the Potomac, which imagines the impeachment proceedings for the president who refused to step down amidst the Watergate scandal. That Mr. Little was still playing Nixon struck me as quaint, but it also provoked a rather uncomfortable thought: if Rich Little were starting out today, talented as he was, he would starve to death. The reason is two-fold: there is no one to imitate, and everyone takes offense.

In this post, I’ll deal with the first issue. For the last 40 years at least, there has been a serious problem in Hollywood in the development and promotion of what we used to call movie stars. Paul Newman saw this problem coming in the 1970s, when he lamented that the biggest box office stars were two robots and a mechanical shark. Certainly, trends in movies—reliance on CGI and pyrotechnics—have stunted the development of actors, who might have otherwise achieved some level of stature, but acting training has had a great deal to do with it as well. Over the last several decades, actors have not trained for the stage; they’ve entered whatever acting academy will take them, focused entirely on television and film style acting, which emphasizes naturalism to a fault. As a result, they don’t develop their voices, and those voices never become distinctive.

I remember reading David Mamet’s intelligent 1987 collection of essays, Writing in Restaurants, in which he argues “Against Amplification” in live stage theatre. He posits that amplification robs the audience of the richness of a trained voice, which is a glorious part of the theatrical experience. Amplification has led to decadence in vocal training. Fast-forward 34 years, and I can barely make out what TV and film actors are saying, especially when the cine-luxe auteur has decided to mix the soundtrack music above the vocals, as if it were all one lush wave of sound or a singular grunge-fest growl. Yes, I’m looking at you, Tom Hardy in The Revenant.

But getting back to my original point. Of course, Rich Little is still doing Nixon, because no one would know who he was doing if he did Brad Pitt, Ryan Gosling, Bradley Cooper, Ben Affleck, Robert Downey, jr., or that guy who plays Wolverine. And it’s not that they’re bad actors (okay, Affleck, yes), it’s just that there’s nothing distinctive about their light, breathy, underdeveloped voices. Moreover, as actors, they’ve been trained to be chameleons rather than icons, the better to expand their range and marketability. That means purging their voices and vocal mannerisms of distinctive traits. Unfortunately, it means they all sort of blur together as interchangeable A-List commodities. If you can’t get Ryan Reynolds and want to plug in Bradley Cooper you can do so without missing a beat. In an age when actors were distinctive, trading, say, Cary Grant out for Gary Cooper would mean making an entirely different picture.

So, this got me thinking about voices. Who were the great male voices of Hollywood, and what was it that made them great? I limited the inquiry to leading men, and my admittedly arbitrary criteria were as follows:

  • Masculinity — A male voice is only aesthetically pleasing to the extent that it projects a masculine ethos. This requires a low register born of testosterone. This is a heavily weighted category.
  • Emotiveness — The voice must retain its masculine ethos throughout the range of emotions the actor plays. That’s not to say pretty, because emotional turmoil can inflict dissonance, but the voice cannot strain weakly to meet the emotional requirements of the role.
  • Distinctiveness — Another major criteria is that the voice must be unique and immediately recognizable.
  • Range — The voice must move easily and naturally from the chest to the head without breaking.

So, without further ado, here are Hollywood’s All-Time Top 5 Male Speaking Voices.

Who are Hollywood’s All-Time Top 5 Male Speaking Voices?

5. Vincent Price — When Michael Jackson was creating Thriller, and needed a distinctive, campy, but menacing voice with gravitas, he turned to the Master of Gothic Horror. Famously overeducated, Price learned his acting craft on the job, on stage, where necessity proved the mother of his unique timbre. Having distinguished himself on Broadway, Price caught the discriminating ear of Orson Welles, and signed a five-show contract for The Mercury (Radio) Theatre. Though ultimately known for the horror films that made him wealthy, Price was not particularly fond of the genre, and was also adept at comedy and melodrama. One of my favorite Price performances has him taking a comic turn in the noir-ish romp His Kind of Woman with Robert Mitchum and Jane Russell, below.

4. Kirk Douglas —No throat could possibly vent the full force of charismatic rage Kirk Douglas carried inside him. Perhaps emanating from the depths of a tortured conscience, his voice always seems on the verge of a rupture. Sure, Kirk teeters on the brink of parody—if his jaw was set any tighter, he’d have been Jim Backus—but he always manages to make his anguish credible.

3. Humphrey Bogart — While most moviegoers might focus on Bogie’s famous lateral lisp, the rasp of his distinctive nasal baritone embodies the cynical detachment of many of his noir characters. Every line from Bogart’s mouth seems to be soaked in bourbon, cigarettes, and betrayal. Though Bogart could speak volumes through his eyes without uttering a word, his unique voice was the product of roughly 17 years on the stage before he began working steadily in film.

2. James Mason — If a speaking voice ever evoked the image of an iron fist in a velvet glove, it was Mason’s. Refined, seductive, and capable of quiet menace, Mason’s vocal instrument allowed him to play romantic leads and villains with equal panache. And, as his portrayal of the self-sabotaging alcoholic Norman Maine in A Star Is Born shows, Mason could project soul-shredding desperation without sounding unreasonably shrill. Below, his acidic pleasantness burns to the bone.

1. Gregory Peck — A perfect match of appearance and sound, Peck was at once ridiculously handsome and perhaps the most vocally virile leading man in Hollywood history. Rumbling like low thunder, Peck’s voice lent gravitas to his matinee idol looks, allowing him to play towering heroes, scowling outlaws and monomaniacal psychotics.  And for those who might object that the previously cited actors are “too stagey” and their acting isn’t natural enough for contemporary tastes, Peck demonstrates we can have the best of both worlds. Trained by Sanford Meisner at the Neighborhood Playhouse, Peck mastered the leading technique for today’s film and TV naturalism.

Honorable mention: Cary Grant, Clark Gable, William Powell, Burt Lancaster, James Stewart, James Cagney, Charlton Heston, James Coburn, and Lee Marvin.

(My thanks to my friend, the talented photographer Barry Morgenstein for use of his photo of Rich Little.)

For your consideration:

Disclaimer: Links in this column may be affiliate links. If you click on an affiliate link, the author receives a small commission on purchases for a limited time at no additional cost to you. These commissions help ensure future posts. Thank you.

If I Saw the Movie, Should I Read the Book? Two by Hitchcock.

Two suspense thrillers by women writers, Rebecca and Strangers on a Train. By Kevin Rush.

How many times have you heard someone say, “Oh, the book is so much better!” It’s practically the mating cry of literary snobs. Yet, how often do we put that claim to the test? I grew up watching classic movies on our tiny 19 inch black and white TV, so if ever there was motivation to get a more expansive view of a story, that would have been it. Yet, rarely did I turn off the TV thinking, “Ooh, now I’ve got to get the book!” Okay, I was watching the Bowery Boys, but still. People who spent two weeks reading the book when a movie only took a couple of hours were peculiar to say the least. I’m thinking of Maria H., my high school acquaintance who claimed to have read Gone With the Wind six times and would recite the opening passage at the least provocation. (This is the only reason I know that Scarlet O’Hara had eyebrows like bat wings.) I remember feeling like such a big boy, when I had read The Taking of Pelham One, Two, Three during the summer after eighth grade and the film was released the following fall. This put me on par with my buddy Tom S., who had read Jaws in advance of the definitive summer blockbuster. (He hinted at the racy chapter Spielberg had omitted, but never gave us the whole scoop.) As I’ve matured, I’m still more likely to read a contemporary novel that’s going to be made into a film than to scour my local library for movie source material, especially when it’s a half-century-old bestseller that didn’t make the canon of my college English curriculum. But this summer I decided to change that. I decided to explore the novels that became movies, and what better place to start than two books Alfred Hitchcock used for his films

https://youtube.com/watch?v=d9eWjSt1VQw

Rebecca — Nominated for 11 Oscars and winning two, the original 1940 version of Daphne du Maurier’s novel was director Alfred Hitchcock’s first Hollywood film and, to that point, the crowning achievement of his career. The Oscar Winner for Best Picture and Best Black and White Cinematography had a stellar cast: a darkly brooding Laurence Olivier, who had brooded darkly to great effect in 1939’s Wuthering Heights; relative newcomer Joan Fontaine, whom Hitchcock would imperil again in 1941’s Suspicion; and Judith Anderson, whose turn as Mrs. Danvers set the standard for Gothic housekeepers for decades to come. (In the 1946 Abbott and Costello comedy The Time of Their Lives, a grim provincial maid greets a party of visitors, prompting the group’s designated wise-cracker to ask, “Didn’t I see you in Rebecca?” I’d also wager that Cloris Leachman owes much of her inspiration for Frau Blücher to Anderson’s eerie domestic.) Audiences flocked to see Rebecca, which was the top-grossing movie of the year.  

The film’s success was hard-won. Legend has it that Olivier had wanted his then girlfriend, later wife, Vivien Leigh to play the female lead, and treated Fontaine horribly. Hitchcock, no doubt hoping such treatment would spill over into the character of a lone woman surrounded by inexplicable hostility, reportedly informed Fontaine that others on the set despised her. And Hitchcock had his own problems; shooting had begun just as Britain entered the war against Hitler’s Germany, weighing emotionally on the British members of cast and crew. Hitch was also at loggerheads with producer David O. Sleznick, who like his director was an obsessive perfectionist. In these days of “safe work spaces,” it’s hard to imagine any good emerging from what was certainly a toxic work environment by contemporary standards, but the proof is on the screen. Rebecca would be the only Best Picture Oscar winner in Hitchcock’s career. Though he was nominated five times as Best Director, including for Rebecca, Hitchcock would never win a competitive Oscar.

I had not seen Rebecca for maybe 25 years before sitting down this summer to read Daphne du Maurier’s classic thriller. I’d forgotten who, save Laurence Oliver, had been in the cast, but the final scene was seared into my memory, and I wondered if the book would be spoiled for me. Happily, it was not. What I discovered was a brilliantly plotted thriller enriched by fine characterizations. The unnamed narrator (Fontaine’s character) is a bit cloying at times. Early in what I’d call the second act, her self-pity was a drag, but her character did not remain stagnant. In fact, many of the characters had surprising depth and personal arcs that made the book work on many levels. The story had numerous plot twists that make you snap your head up from the page and go “Wow!” As for the ending I knew was coming, it’s handled more subtly here than in the film, so the story ends on a haunting note of mystery. If you’re looking for escapist fiction that’s intriguing and artfully crafted, Rebecca is well worth your time, even if you’ve seen the film.

Strangers on a Train Patricia Highsmith’s 1950 debut novel earned critical praise as well as moderate commercial success. Though it never cracked the New York Times Bestseller List, Strangers on a Train caught the unblinking side-eye of Alfred Hitchcock, who promptly bought the film rights, bidding anonymously to keep the price down. Hitchcock’s 1951 version of Strangers starred Fairly Granger as the squeaky-clean Guy Haines, who late one night on a train trip meets a flamboyant, drunken psychopath, Bruno Antony (played deliciously by Robert Walker), and gets drawn into his sinister plan to “trade murders.” Hitchcock had directed Granger in his 1948 experimental thriller Rope, one of a string of postwar mediocrities (The Paradine Case (1947), Under Capricorn (1949), Stage Fright (1950)) that incited whispers that maybe Hitch had lost his touch. The once-and-future Master of Suspense badly needed a hit to buff the tarnish off his image, and Strangers delivered, ushering in the decade that would arguably produce Hitchcock’s finest work.

It’s somewhat ironic, however, that Hitchcock’s film is most famous for two vignettes which do not appear in the book: the tennis match and the merry-go-round catastrophe. Moviegoers will remember that Guy has a match at Forest Hills on the day he suspects Bruno will return to the scene of the first murder and plant incriminating evidence against him. Guy has to get home to foil Bruno, but must play the match, because withdrawing would bring him under further suspicion. The match, naturally, goes into overtime and the suspense builds to an excruciating pitch. The scene is not in the book, because Highsmith’s protagonist is not a tennis player, he’s an architect. And even though the movie is faithful to the book in placing the first murder in an amusement park, the book does not depict a climactic return to the scene of the crime.

The memorable out-of-control merry-go-round crash is not Highsmith’s invention. Rather, it’s lifted in all its major details from a 1946 British crime novel, The Moving Toyshop, by Bruce Montgomery, writing under his pseudonym Edmund Crispin. The Crispin books are noted for combining edge-of-the-seat suspense with high-spirited humor, so it stands to reason Hitchcock would have read them. One can imagine Hitch reading Highsmith’s chilling sequence—where Bruno stalks Guy’s wife Miriam to and through Lake Metcalf’s Kingdom of Fun—and musing, “We’ll have to go back there for that Crispin cataclysm.” Neither Crispin nor Montgomery is credited in the screenplay, which lists Whitfield Cook, Czenzi Ormonde (then an assistant to Ben Hecht, whom Hitchcock wanted but was unavailable), and Raymond Chandler.

Given the departures the film takes from the book, it’s reasonable to ask whether the book is worth reading, but it absolutely is. Patricia Highsmith enjoyed a prolific, though by some measures an underappreciated, career as a crime novelist, giving us classics, such as The Price of Salt (produced for the screen as Carol) and the Ripley series. She was a pioneer in weaving sexual deviancy into her examinations of killer psychology. In Strangers, Highsmith strongly hints at Bruno’s homosexuality and his attraction to Guy, a theme which is present, but muted, in the performances of Walker and Granger. Highsmith also takes a darker turn in her narrative than Hitchcock would dare with a mainstream Hollywood feature, especially when he was much in need of a hit. Hi-jinx on a calliope served his purposes much better than a chilling examination of the human soul. Highsmith, who had nothing to lose on her first effort, was willing to risk shocking and alienating her audience by blurring the line between Guy and Bruno, while Hitchcock framed the tale as a more-or-less clear battle between good and evil, rational and insane. As an artist, Highsmith deserves praise for her daring, which makes her novel edgy and intriguing even 70 years after its initial release.

Disclaimer: Links in this column may be affiliate links. If you click on an affiliate link, the author receives a small commission on purchases for a limited time at no additional cost to you. These commissions help ensure future posts. Thank you.

© 2024 kevinrush.us

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑