women

My Barbra obsession, then and always

Anna Wahrman Leave a comment

In honor of the Barbra Streisand “Back to Brooklyn” concert tonight (and the preshow fans’ dinner, and the postshow fans’ drinks outing…), I’m posting my recent contribution to Alison Waldman‘s new book, Barbra Memories. She used my essay as one of dozens included in the book  (click for full size).

It is posted below in its original form.

 

I was 10 when I saw Yentl on a rollaway VHS player in Sunday school at my synagogue in Toledo, Ohio.

Her voice was so pretty, she was so strong, and she was Jewish, just like me! Thus began my raging, decades-long obsession with Barbra Streisand.

In short order, my dad sought out 12-inch records for me from the local library and garage sales: Funny Girl (the movie), The Barbra Streisand Album and My Name Is Barbra. I was as entranced by her voice as I was by the pictures of her on the covers. Though I had fallen for her in Yentl, it was those early albums that cemented the fascination. Her voice was like no other I’d heard before: gorgeous, playful, resonant, full of personality. I’m quite certain I didn’t understand the ennui of “Cry Me a River” or the irony of her version of “Happy Days Are Here Again.” I’m sure I didn’t know the heartbreak of “My Man.” All I knew was that her voice — brassy, belty, zippy — spoke to me on a level I’d never experienced before. It was like she was singing to me. I was transfixed. I was moved. I was obsessed.

I continued the pursuit. When I was 13 I checked out the biography Streisand: The Woman and the Legend from the Wood County Library and read it passionately. The book portrayed her as bold and brash, confident and a little weird (boldly dropping the extra A?!). I ate it up. Every fact of her life spoke to me on a deep level. She was born one day before my mother, both in Brooklyn, NY. Somehow this transmogrified in my mind as though Barbra was my real mother — they must have been born in the same hospital, so maybe my mother was switched with her, and so I’m really Barbra’s daughter…? It all made sense in my adolescent mind.

There was more. She played clubs in the ’60s New York’s Greenwich Village; my grandfather owned a bar in the ’60s in the Village! Did they ever meet; did she ever go there?! I read other biographies. I bought tapes. I borrowed CDs. I rented bad sex farces. I also rented great love stories. I was transfixed when she was onscreen. She was like me — but talented! And that voice, that voice…

I developed a highly attuned sense of Barbra; I took her on as a role model and a hero. I shook my head at the Jon Peters years. I was dismayed by the press’s portrayal of her as an inflexible haranguer. I admired her unwavering support of liberal causes. I cheered her unrelenting quest for perfection in all things. And I marveled at her undisputed artistic achievement.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the peak years of my Barbra obsession coincided with the time I was developing my sense of self, the age when one is most influenced by and impressed with idols of all kinds. The summer before college, I even forced my teenage friends to watch Yentl and was positively dismayed when they shrugged her off as a middle-aged woman who didn’t remotely carry off the conceit of playing a girl pretending to be a boy. But this didn’t stop my adoration, nor did it prevent me from forcing my freshman-year roommate to listen to The Concert night and day.

But hero worship often ends. It ends roughly about the same time you start to realize it’s not the drinking that kills you, it’s the daylong recovery instead of the hour-long one. You’ve grown up and grown past it — or at least I did.

I found criticisms where I used to find only abject adulation. I thought Barbra’s new material was overproduced, overorchestrated. Big-voiced, belting Barbra, backed by a 60-piece orchestra, can be uplifting and life affirming (for example, “A Piece of Sky”). Intimate, lush Barbra can be smooth and inviting (“Speak Low,” “Lazy Afternoon”); pop Barbra can be upbeat and fun (“Stoney End,” “Guilty”). Sweet Barbra can be lovely and enchanting (“Evergreen”); jazzy Barbra can swing and dip (“Cornet Man”). But where was the simple bass-drum-piano accompaniment that let her voice be the star? The funky approach and unexpectedly off (but somehow perfect) pronunciations that showcased her talent in her early years had been replaced with sappy life lessons, bombastically produced. She was different. Or maybe I was.

When she toured in 1994, I couldn’t afford tickets (I was only 17 and still in high school, after all). I vowed that if she ever toured again, I would go no matter what. Thankfully that came to pass in 2000 (the “Final Tour”!) and again in 2006. Despite the fact that I’d grown up a bit — and, I thought, grown past my obsession — in both instances, I was moved to tears (during the “Yentl Medley” and “Down With Love,” respectively). And I expect to be bawling my eyes out again this time. Her unique take on the lyrics and surprising phrasing can still stop me in my tracks and give me goose bumps. Quite simply, she moves me. I don’t know how, exactly, she will move me this time, but I know that she will. How could she not? She’s been a precious and well-loved (and -respected, and -esteemed) part of my life since I was a child — since before I was able to put the emotions she made me feel into words like this.

Put simply, I am grateful for the many gifts she has been blessed with and with which she has, in turn, blessed me. Occasionally, on moments like this, when she’s on stage and in strong voice, I let myself feel that gratitude, let myself be transported back to my teenage bedroom, back to that classroom in shul — the one by the rabbi’s office, with the red carpet and the rollaway VCR — where I was first mesmerized and charmed by her voice, her look, her charisma, her authenticity, her talent.

Read More

“But can he do it?” Who cares?

Anna Wahrman Leave a comment

The New York Times today published another entry into the annals of a trend I’ve noticed that I call the “But can he do it?” story. It’s a series of stories that profile a white guy “reinventing” the media, as reported by a white guy in the media. This one is about David Karp, the 26-year-old “wunderkind” who invented Tumblr. It’s filled with quotes like: “‘He has very little notion of what it means to be a conformist,’ or to measure his thinking against abstract conventional wisdom.”

Eye roll. A privileged white guy is a nonconformist? OK, if you say so.

But this is only one article, one that follows many, many eye-rollers before it with the same theme. For example, there was the Ken Auletta profile of Tim Armstrong in The New Yorker last year, in which he questions whether Armstrong’s strategy of revitalizing AOL’s home page and investing in local will pay off. (I guess Armstrong didn’t bother to tell Auletta that actually the other part of this “strategy,” the winning part, was buying the Huffington Post a week later.)

The Washington Post recently did a “But can he do it?” piece on whether Chris Hughes really can revitalize The New Republic. And speaking of white guys revitalizing the media: Can Josh Tyrangiel remake Businessweek now that it’s Bloomberg Businessweek? And speaking of The Washington Post (talk about the insularity of the media), can Robert Thompson remake it under NewsCorp?

On and on. Obviously the trend is indicative of a much larger problem, which is that white guys in the media are constantly (unconsciously?) creating these stories so they can continue to reinforce their own relevancy. The narrative of “But can he do it?” is really their own, so they think it’s interesting for others to read about. And then their editors, who are for the most part white guys in the media, also think it’s interesting, so they OK the stories, and the column inches, and the emphasis in coverage. But obviously no one else cares whether these white guys in the media will succeed except for other white guys in the media.

Really: Will Bloomberg Businessweek make money? Will David Karp reinvent advertising on the Internet? Well, WILL THEY?

Who cares?

And also, of course, the articles never actually say or even predict whether these white guys will or will not reinvent these media properties/websites, because the writers have no idea. Which just reinforces how useless this so-called reporting truly is. No one actually knows how this business is going to go in the next few, handful, several, many years in the future. These stories might as well be headlined: “Does this white guy know something the rest of you white guys don’t?” The answer, at the end of each, is, “Maybe!” And also, if not explicitly, “I hope some day this guy or a guy like him will hire me!”

The same is true, by the way, for political profiles and business profiles. “Can this white guy win this election/policy argument/budget showdown against other white guys?” “Can this white guy sell more lightbulbs/lumber/lathes than the other white guys?”

It’s boring. It’s irrelevant to most of the population. No one knows the answer anyway. And yet it’s the focus of coverage because, unfortunately, white guys run everything. So it’s a problem for women, gays, minorities and anyone else who would like see themselves and their lives and struggles reflected in the media but is completely un- or under-represented.

Final note on this: “But can he do it?” is basically is Ken Auletta’s reason for being. It seems like every article he writes is another breathless “But can he do it?” He wrote a whole book that was basically a “But can they do it?” about the two white guys who created Google. Rarely, he writes a “But can she do it?” But given that there are only two powerful ladies in media (obviously, Jill Abramson and Sheryl Sandberg), these are unusual. But fair’s fair, he did write them, though I’ll warn you that neither of these women has any answers about the future of media, either.

Read More

Remembering Nora Ephron

Anna Wahrman Leave a comment

Nora EphronWhen Harry Met Sally… is well within in my top five movies of all time. I don’t think this is just because it hit me at the exact right age (movies are much more influential when you see them as a teen, don’t you think?). It’s not because it covered new territory (there were other New York-based romantic comedies, and arguably the movie is merely a woman’s spin on a Woody Allen film). But the territory it did cover was done in a such a completely new way, with such a different and fresh perspective. And when that is done well, it can be transcendent. With the Nora Ephron-penned When Harry Met Sally…, that’s exactly what happened.

I obviously didn’t know Ms. Ephron personally. But her impact on my life was significant nonetheless. She made New York seem so glamorous and smart. Between this movie and The Days and Nights of Molly Dodd, which was on TV around the same time, I thought the Upper West Side was the home of the most intelligent, wry, interesting women on earth, people who constantly had quips, comebacks and dinner parties. I didn’t dare admit to imagining I’d someday be in their midst.

Truthfully, I enjoyed You’ve Got Mail and Sleepless in Seattle as much as the next guy, but I found her to be a fairly self-indulgent director, mostly in terms of editing, not dialogue. (I think the reason WHMS is so sharp is because of the crisp direction from Rob Reiner, who keeps the pace moving. Same for Mike Nichols’s direction of Heartburn. Compare those to her other movies’ draggy last half-hours, and all the parts of Julie and Julia when Meryl Streep wasn’t onscreen.)

But, oh, her writing. Her perspective was singular and trend-setting. I absolutely loved her take on things, her biting wit, her approach to life. Hell, I even saw Imaginary Friends on Broadway (and I even came back after intermission). The woman set the bar. She upped the ante. She changed the game. She did all of those cliches, including Ginger dancing backward, and she did it with panache.

Seems I’m not the only one she charmed. The articles and obituaries I’ve read today make her sound like a pretty amazing friend and mom, as well as a talented screenwriter, essayist, director and all the rest. I saw her do a Q&A with Gail Collins at the 92nd Street Y a couple of years ago, and she made everyone in the audience feel like we were gathered around her kitchen table. She was a gifted woman. A breed apart in terms of language, observation and truth-telling. I feel for her family. I can’t believe she’s gone; they must be out of their minds with disbelief.

In remembrance, I thought I’d cobble together some of the amazing dialogue from this incredible movie. I’m not providing context for these and they are in no particular order. Taken together, they show just how much richness was in that screenplay. I consider it her opus. She will be missed.

You’re right, you’re right. I know you’re right.

(I don’t even know how many times my friend Molly and I have said this to each other over the years.)

It’s amazing. You look like a normal person but actually you are the angel of death.

I had these days-of-the-week underpants. He was all suspicious. Where was Sunday? Where had I left Sunday? And I told him, and he didn’t believe me. (Harry: What?!) They don’t make Sunday. (Harry: Why not?) Because of God.

You’re the worst kind; you’re high maintenance but you think you’re low maintenance.

Draw something resembling anything. (Later) “Baby talk”? That’s not a saying. (Harry: Oh, but “baby fish mouth” is sweeping the nation?)

You don’t always have to express every emotion you’re having every moment you’re having it.

You’re saying I’m having sex with these men without my knowledge?

Waiter, there is too much pepper on my paprikash. But I would be proud to partake of your pecan pie.

No, no, you did not have great sex with Sheldon. A Sheldon can do your income taxes. If you need a root canal, Sheldon’s your man.

I’d like the pie heated and I don’t want the ice cream on top, I want it on the side, and I’d like strawberry instead of vanilla if you have it, if not, then no ice cream, just whipped cream, but only if it’s real; if it’s out of the can, then nothing. (Waitress: Not even the pie?) Sally Albright: No, I want the pie, but then not heated.

Is one of us supposed to be a dog in this scenario? (Harry: Yes.) Who is the dog? (Harry: You are.) I am?! I am the dog. I am the dog.

(Again, Molly and I spent countless hours with this dialogue. In fact, he is the dog. To him, it’s been seven years. That makes him the dog! Much debated!)

The fact that you’re not answering leads me to believe you’re either: A) not at home; B) home but don’t want to talk to me; or C) home, desperately want to talk to me, but trapped under something heavy. If it’s either A) or C), please call me back.

Everybody thinks they have good taste and a sense of humor.

No one has ever quoted me back to me before.

When I buy a new book, I read the last page first. That way, in case I die before I finish, I know how it ends. That, my friend, is a dark side.

No, no, no, I drove him away! And I’m gonna be 40! (Harry: When?) Sally: Someday!

Someone is staring at you in Personal Growth.

I thought he was crossing the room to talk to my friend Maxine, because people were always crossing rooms to talk to Maxine.

I’m Ben Small, of the Coney Island Smalls.

This stupid, wagon wheel, Roy Rogers, garage sale coffee table!

Read More

Gender inequality weekly roundup

Anna Wahrman Leave a comment

The response by Rachel Sklar on Daily Beast to Daily Beast’s own “Digital Power Index” and the sexism therein (just seven women out of 100) really nailed it.

“[The problem] actually pretty simple: Either you think all these industries are dominated across the very top levels by predominantly white men because there are numerous deep-seated societal norms and institutional biases that make it more challenging for women and minorities to advance as quickly and as far as their white male counterparts…or you think that these lists merely reflect the fact that white dudes must just be better at everything…. There is no murky middle ground where some of these industries are just more meritocratic and it just so happens that the same patterns that play out across historically gender-biased industries coincidentally bubble up to the surface here too.”

I think many white men believe that the world is a meritocracy because they are rewarded in all kinds of ways (rightly, they think). Actually, they started the race 100 yards ahead, but they’re willfully unaware and also somehow still proud when they win.

Sklar name-checks Anne-Marie Slaughter’s piece in The Atlantic, which I’ve also been thinking about since last week. The piece is about why women can’t have it all. She carefully unpacks tropes like, “It’s possible if you are just committed enough,” “It’s possible if you sequence it right” and “It’s possible if you marry the right person.” In the piece, she discusses family, pressure to be on site in the office and institutional prejudice against working moms. There’s no real solution floated forward (one of the problems with systemic prejudices is that it’s hard to solve them!), except maybe changing our agrarian school schedule to better match work schedules. Her conclusion is basically that we should all do what makes us happy.

I thought Rebecca Traister hit a nice volley back to Slaughter in her piece in Salon by saying that we should start by never even saying the words “have it all” ever again:

“It is a trap, a setup for inevitable feminist short-fall. Irresponsibly conflating liberation with satisfaction, the ‘have it all’ formulation sets an impossible bar for female success and then ensures that when women fail to clear it, it’s feminism — as opposed to persistent gender inequity — that’s to blame.”

Which brings us back to where we started.

Read More

Readers value editing

Anna Wahrman Leave a comment

Poynter covers Wayne State University prof Fred Vultee’s ACES presentation of his recent study on the value editors add. Key takeaway:

“Routine editing makes a statistically significant and moderately strong difference in how audiences perceive the professionalism, writing quality, organization, and value of news articles.”

Makes complete sense to me. The problem in my experience is one Vultee saw in his study as well: “We know [editors] add value, but since they don’t add content it’s been hard to make a specific case of how they add value.”

When it’s hard to explain how you add value, it’s hard to argue against getting laid off. But clearly editors do add value, as the study notes, especially among women readers — it’s just that the value is added in ways other than dollars and cents, which is difficult to justify to the types who look only at the bottom line. But the feelings of trust and professionalism are ones that brands should cultivate, not get rid of. Never has the saying “the invisible hand of the editor” been more ironic.

Read More