'Bird' (DOA, etc. is below this)

Well, I'm posting a little early for the March 24th posting. In light of that, I'm only commenting on 'Bird' so far and will add more later as I read the selected readings. Wow, what a film!

Structure as a Frame for the Biopic Narrative

I have to admit that the first time I watched ‘Bird’, I disliked the hodgepodge style of the flashbacks; however, toward the end of the film, it seemed that the flashbacks were symbolic of Parker’s life flashing before his eyes in his moment of death, a very effective technique. This technique was further simulated by the flashing images during his heart attack toward the close of the film. One interesting thing is that the images continue to flash even after his body has gone limp, signifying that his life was continuing through the memories his music had created. In this way, his legend extended beyond the duration of his physical body. Also intriguing is the image of the juggler on the screen who continues to garner laughs after Parker dies, revealing the temporality of spectacle itself. Although Parker’s daughter verifies in an interview I found that he was indeed laughing at a juggler when he died, this scene says so much. In a way, his life was a tragicomedy in which he was the spectacle, the juggler, who was destined to drop the ball; even in his death, however, he still never ceased to be heard.

Considering the style in which Parker’s life is related in this film, I think the director did a fine job bridging the gap between Parker’s reality and his listening audience, us. Not only do the flashbacks capture a man constantly re-evaluating his life but the ebb and flow of the narrative also promoted compassion for the man himself. The film reached a point several times that one thought Parker would die and the agony would stop; instead, the film would begin on another tangent and you would be caught up in his life again. One must wonder, did he feel the same way, wondering when the nightmare would finally end? Did he feel trapped in his own life? The endless cycle of addiction, incarceration within mental wards and hospitals, and the great number of relationships that went south must have seemed to spiral out of control for him at times. I think the film captured that trapped, spiral effect really well.

Aggrandizement of an Icon: Fact or Fiction?

I had a little trouble finding a film that we have covered already that is on the same plane with this one. So far, DOA, Cabin in the Sky, Check and Doublecheck, etc. have all been fictional narratives which do not seek to sum up a man’s life. To establish a comparison, I watched ‘Lady Sings the Blues’ again, a film that I found largely exaggerated the character of Billy Holiday, glorifying her life and hiding many of the negative things she did (or blaming them on others). Similar to ‘Lady Sings the Blues’, ‘Bird’ seems to glorify Charlie Parker in many areas. One key similarity is the fact that only the last spouse of the star is shown in the film and appears to be the only marriage partner although in reality, both Billy Holiday and Charlie Parker were married multiple times. Chan, in the film, references the many women who claim to be Mrs. Charlie Parker, but the jest is that they were one-night-stands or live-in girlfriends rather than legal unions. As I was so disappointed by ‘Lady Sings the Blues’, I started noting elements of the film that seemed to place Parker on a pedestal. I compared my list against an interview with Parker’s daughter at URL http://www.charlieparkerresidence.net/pages/kimparker_interview.html. Several items on my list included:
* Parker is shown as a fun-loving father to his children despite his drug problem and late-night occupation; I wasn’t sure that the two could co-exist. The film even makes reference to the idea that he wrote two songs for his two older children. Based on the interview with Kim Parker, Parker was indeed a fun father who tried to be there for his children. I could not find verification for the song-writing idea.
* Parker is portrayed as a patient though frustrated man who is the brunt of everyone’s negativity, especially whites. From the nurses in the hospital in the first few moments of the film to Chan and her mother, to the recording agents, to corrupt police who demand bribes, to Southern whites, to even Dizzy Gillespie who may represent in a mild form a black man turned over to white mentality, everyone appears to have nothing but negative feedback for Parker. Although there are points in the film where his playing is praised, the negativity on a personal level is overwhelming; this part of the film certainly bolstered sympathy from me. According to the interview I read, the children were distanced from any controversies --even those between Chan and Parker-- until after Pree died. I’m not sure whether everyone was really that negative toward him or if that was a technique used to garner compassion for his addiction though.
* Another way he was put on a pedestal was the way in which his character tries to ‘kick the habit’ for the sake of Red. I couldn’t find any verification of this except for the fact that Red is still living and could have helped with the filming of ‘Bird.’
* He’s betrayed by Chan in the beginning when she becomes pregnant by another man, but loves her still; however, his philandering--though present--is downplayed. Looking at biographical accounts of Parker, he was extremely promiscuous.

Overall, based on the film’s presentation of the good and bad in Parker’s life, I think that this film is much more realistic than ‘Lady Sings the Blues’. Parker’s addiction and even the tracer marks are shown along with the glorifying elements. Although he does appear as a victim of circumstance in the film, I really have to agree with that image of Charlie Parker, a man empowered through the escape of his music but who continually dealt with personal, relationship, and business failures that emasculated and threatened him. Although the heroic love he has for his wife Chan or his heroic attempt to show Red he doesn’t need drugs may have been part of his character--I couldn’t find proof of this--I think that the paradox of his life as empowered versus emasculated is the strongest link the film communicates about an addicted icon.

Interesting Elements of Jazz

Not only does the film, in my opinion, capture Charlie Parker in an effective, realistic, and moving way, but there are also interesting elements within the narrative that give insight into the world of jazz in its last days before Rock and Roll’s heyday. For instance, the play-off between Buster and Parker in Parker’s youth is a scene repeated throughout the film as one of the events that lead to Parker’s lack of confidence as a man. The play-off is truly competitive; I had never really seen one in action before.

Another element of jazz that I found was communicated well was the sensuality of the art. Parker’s eyes and body movements in relation to key women in his audience jumped off the screen as overtly sexual; the glances between patron and musician as presented by the camera angles really captured the unspoken sensuality of jazz night clubs. I thought that was exceedingly well-done in this film.

Finally, no jazz film would be complete without a reference to Jews. How interesting that Red is Jewish and opens the door for Parker to play for a Jewish wedding. I was unable to verify this so far today but I’m still looking and still reading our reading assignment.

Summation of a Masterpiece

Because I had been so misguided by ‘Lady Sings the Blues’, I had looked at biographical information on Charlie Parker prior to watching this film. I was surprised to see that this film was a much better representation of the real man -- or at least the real man as far as anyone could know him. I know that the film really opened my heart to this artist; having read that he was an addict, I had originally questioned his right to be an icon despite his talent. After seeing a human face on the story though and coming face-to-face with the treatment many deal toward addicts, I realized how much this personal failure shaped his life, his art, and how much the negativity around him likely perpetuated the addiction and health problems. In watching this film, I at once felt powerless to suggest an alternate course for him. Two scenes that haunt me--especially since I had judged him harshly based on cold, hard biographical data prior to viewing the film--are the last conversation he has with Dizzy and his conversation with Red in the bar. As Dizzy explains why it’s important to defy stereotype and not do drugs, Parker’s character replies “I can go to a doctor over here and pay $50 and feel no better. I can go to another doctor over there and pay $75 and feel no better. But I can go to a man on the corner and pay him $10 and suddenly my ulcers don’t hurt any more, my liver don’t hurt any more, and I’m at peace. That’s heaven to me.” I must admit that brought tears to my eyes. Was jazz itself an escape from pain too? In the scene with Red, Parker’s character asks Red if he expects to see 40. Red turns the question on Parker as he leaves the bar. Parker, with a ghost form of the doctor from his youth hanging over his shoulder, says “I’m different.” It is such a final statement. He has given up on himself.

Although spectacle is the glory of jazz, it almost seems in this film to point out the pain of spectacle. As Parker finds himself so ill he can’t hold a sax in this arms, he must submit himself to the crowds as a spectacle to make a living. There is no private recourse for his suffering; he is ever on-stage, a sideshow freak where his whole life is open to the dissection of the masses. I just had this eerie feeling of an animal in a cage at the zoo whose only salvation is to continue to be the savage sideshow.