I stayed
on in Florence for a year after we all left
the Villa Ulivi but that story will go into
my autobio when I get around to filling in
the many blanks in time and space. Right
now we're talking about my Papa. In the photo
below he's arriving at an airport - I'm not
sure where or when - but it's so characteristic
of him: the eternal traveller, always arriving
or leaving
My father
had many theories and one which he wrote,
re-wrote and talked a great deal about over
the years was called: The Focus
of Perception .
It was the basis for
his next project and also influenced
his observations of people in
general. Here are some edited
quotes which I've selected from
his notes:
The premise of The
Focus of Perception is that the mind
contains a mechanism or process similar
to a camera lens which, by its aperture
and angle, determines the way people,
situations and events are perceived and
thus one's emotional and intellectual
responses to them. This process is psychological,
not visual, but the camera is a useful
metaphor to describe it.
Not only
do we contradict one
another, but we also tend to contradict
ourselves. Human contradiction and its
effects, whether on a personal or a global
scale, might be better understood if
the Focus of Perception was observed
in action within one's self and in
others' behavior and attitudes. Relationships,
whether between individuals, groups
or nations, often undergo a cavalcade
of contradictory states, affirmations
and negations, depending on the angle
at which the Focus is set, how wide the
angle is and whether it is static or
fluctuating.
There is a great
difference between understanding another person through
their focus and
trying to understand them only through
one's own. In the absence of a strong
motivation - such as love, a specific
goal, or the desire for truth - we see
no reason to change our Focus of Perception
and we passively accept whatever focus
is provided by our upbringing, environment,
or the winds of fashion. But if we become
aware of our focal position in relation
to others, it becomes possible to
change what had seemed immutable in ourselves.
We are prisoners
within the boundaries of our current
focus only if we accept to be imprisoned
in this optic. To change one's focal
position, it is necessary first of all
to change it on a specific subject or
problem: to make a leap. This might result
in moving to a position diametrically
opposed to our current stance. With further
small steps, a change may occur
in our perception of the particular issue,
and thence a gradual opening of our understanding
of the larger picture.
Sacha's new
undertaking, although rooted
in the above premise, took shape in a
less theoretical way. He called
it Who
Do You Think You Are . This
happens to be the name of a current television
series but I'm fairly sure they
don't know that my father thought of the
title long ago. Anyway the TV series is
about celebrities looking into their
genealogical history. Sacha's project was
something else entirely.
He began by contacting
three people: Françoise
Sagan, whose slim first novel Bonjour
Tristesse had propelled her to
instant fame; Art
Buchwald, the witty satirist whose regular
column in the Washington Post my father loved;
and Gipsy
Rose Lee, the burlesque stripper/actress.
When his project was described
to them they agreed to take part. There was
no connection between these three and I have
no idea what prompted Sacha to choose them
as subjects for his enquiry.
He recorded
audio interviews with each of them, asking
them to describe how they saw themselves.
Separate interviews were then arranged with
some of their friends, acquaintances and
colleagues, to record their own views of
these individuals. The aim of the exercise
was to demonstrate that the image we have
of ourselves frequently contradicts the
impressions others have of us. No conclusions
or judgements were offered as to which views
were the 'truer' ones. We were simply asked
to consider the possibility that 'who we
think we are' is open to many interpretations.
In one of those amazing
synchronicities that the blogosphere occasionally
generates,
Jean in
her perceptive review of Summertime by
J.M. Coetzee, seems to have tuned into my
father's thinking and into what I was about
to blog concerning it. She wrote on 19 November:
It's
something we could all do: speculate on how
our intimates might describe us. But,
think about
it, put yourself there... I can quickly
see that
I'd do one of two things: construct a
rosy, seamless
image - the wish-fulfilment version, or
go way
the other way and indulge my darkest
fantasies
of how they all disliked and despised me
really.
The audio interviews
were only the preliminary
stage: Sacha's intention
was to make a film, if funding could be
raised. This didn't happen
and Who DoYou Think You Are was
shelved and forgotten. But at least the
memory of it now lives on, here in this tiny
corner of cyberspace.
Before ending this
flashback into some of my father's creative
adventures, there's one more I must mention:
the thirteen
minute film, Report on Love , a
comic commentary on the Kinsey Report,
produced and directed by Sacha in 1955.
When Dr. Kinsey first
heard of the film he prepared to sue, without
having seen it. But after a preview was arranged
especially for him at Indiana University
(where he was Professor of Zoology) he
changed his mind and the film went ahead,
screened in cinemas across the USA as the
'featurette' along with major films; it was
even nominated for an Academy Award. Below
is a write-up from Picture Week in
New York.
I have a copy of the
film on VHS tape and watched it again a few
days ago. It is extremely
dated conceptually and technically
but quite clever, combining animation
and live action. Light-weight stuff
compared to Sacha's other projects but I
think he was hoping this one would achieve
commercial success. It didn't, but
so what? It was not gold but a little glitter
never hurt anyone.
