Ten Bucks

We’ve had this thing kicking around my basement/workshop/lair for several years. It’s a cottage furniture dresser.

We bought it at a tent by the side of the road, out in the boonies. We used to raid it quite often for junque we could salvage and perch on to save money and collect splinters. It was cheap. How cheap? This cheap:

It was really dirty, but unlike the photos, the item itself is not out of focus. Two of the drawers were wonky. They all stuck and shrieked like a miser at tax time when you tried to operate them.

The term “cottage furniture” has been debased over the years. I oughta know, I helped debase it. Originally, cottage furniture referred to relatively inexpensive suites of mostly bedroom furniture, made from common grades of wood and painted in folk art style to mimic expensive veneers. Floral adornments were often added, or sometimes still life stuff or even the occasional seafaring illustration. They’re often pinstriped like ours is.

The term “cottage furniture” has morphed into painted casual furniture, usually a riff on shabby chic decorating. I used to make cottage furniture and sell it online. The original cottage furniture stuff is about 150 years old now. It was pretty common, so no one thought to save much of it, and now good examples of it are getting rare-ish and valuable-adjacent.

So why was it ten bucks? Because someone had butchered it. There was once an ornate mirror between the twin towers of the drawers, and someone wanted it, so they pried it off with force aplenty, and left the rest of the dresser as furniture carrion. The dresser, intact, was worth something. Separately, the two pieces it was wrenched into were basically worthless.

Our ten-dollar remnant used to look something like this:

Original vintage cottage furniture doesn’t get restored much, because few people know how to do faux bois (grain painting) anymore. You’d have to know how to fix handmade furniture, too. All the drawers in our dresser are hand dovetailed, including the backs. The frames are nailed into the chamfered corner posts with cut nails driven in from inside out. And when you were all done with all of that, you’d be required to be some form of at-least rudimentary artist, and a dab hand at pinstriping, too.

I made a drawer runner and some drawer stops out of scraps from the burn pile, and glued them in. The knobs (pulls, really) had all been scavenged off the thing, so we bought reproductions that were appropriate to the style. Those cost something like eight bucks apiece, so our sugar bowl didn’t escape totally unscathed. The new pulls had a walnut teardrop pull, which we disassembled, sprayed with clear lacquer, and put back together.

You have to be careful with finishes like these. I’ve done lots of faux painting, and researched it quite a bit. You can never tell what the fellows that did the original work might have been using to grain the exterior. It could be shellac, or various primitive water-based stuff. Casein was popular (milk paint). Hell, the really good guys used to be able to do it with stale beer as a medium.

I knew the usual panoply of nasties like acetone and paint thinner and toluene and lacquer thinner and denatured alcohol were just as likely to immediately dissolve the finish as clean it. So after banging all the nails it required, gluing in any missing pieces, and waxing the drawers so they’d slide in and out nicely, I simply took some disinfectant towelettes and wiped the thing down. When it was as clean as I could make it, I gave it a thin coat of water-borne clear finish, applied with a foam brush. The backplate on the pulls fit the craters on the drawer fronts perfectly, so I knew they were probably pretty much an exact substitute for the original.

And we ended up with this:

We have a pantry porch adjacent to the kitchen, and storage is storage. And I’ll bet an afternoon’s effort and some knobs catapulted the value of this ten dollar thing into the fifteen-dollar range, at least.

Before CGI

Before CGI, filmmakers found people who could actually do stuff, and pointed cameras at them. In the flawed masterpiece, The Big Country, Chuck Connors and a few stuntmen showed Gregory Peck and Carroll Baker how to ride horses:

There’s a great mix of humor in this drama. The cowboy who can’t get his boot on at the beginning of the chase, and then can’t get on his horse, is a nice touch.

The director of the first 3/4 of this movie was William Wyler. Wyler was something of a legend in Hollywood by the time he made The Big Country in 1958. He ended up with three best director Oscars, and had thirteen nominations total (tied for the most). He drove actors up the wall, making them do forty takes, but they all wanted to work with him anyway. Henry Fonda wondered why Wyler wanted another take. “It stinks.” Charlton Heston asked for direction. “Be better.” Gotta love that kind of management.

Wyler made all kinds of movies well. Hell, he made 32 silent movies just to warm up. He did westerns and dramas and comedies and sword and sandal epics and musicals and they’re all still pretty entertaining to watch. The Big Country was a big hit, although the critics mostly thought it was pretty meh. Eisenhower was still president then, and loved it, and had the movie screened four straight nights in the White House.

If you’re in the know about cinematography, you probably know about this movie. Wyler and Gregg Toland developed and perfected what’s called deep-focus cinematography. The lenses they used could keep everything in the frame in focus, no matter what the depth of field was. Nothing on the screen was blurry, no matter where it was.

Lots of directors hated widescreen. There was too much area to cover, and it was easy for the actors to look lost. But movies like The Big Country embraced all that screen square footage. The scenes of the actors pounding across the measureless prairie are amazing. I don’t think you would have Lawrence of Arabia four years later if David Lean hadn’t seen how Wyler used the landscape in The Big Country.

Wyler used the landscape as a metaphor. The fight scene in the same movie is unexcelled, because of the moonlight mood and the tiny men struggling to settle a meaningless score in a gigantic void of featureless grass:

They gave Burl Ives an Oscar for this movie, but I don’t know why. He’s sorta eating the scenery through most of it. But the real problem with the movie is Wyler was incredibly in demand for his work, and he had to ditch The Big Country to go to Italy to make Ben Hur. The movie was finished by a different director, and squanders the vibe that built up throughout the first part of the film. It just sort of fizzles out at the end.

It matters who directs a film. People used to know how to do things, but not everyone knew how to do it like William Wyler.

[Thanks for reading and commenting at Sippican Cottage. If you’d like to support this site, tell an interfriend about Sippican Cottage, or make a donation with our tip jar. It’s greatly appreciated]

She Comes In Colors In South Hiram, Maine

Dat’s Molly Tuttle from Palo Alto, of all places, playing at the Ossipee Valley Music Festival in South Hiram, Maine in 2022. Her whole family are bluegrass aficionados, and I believe at least one person on the stage with her is her brother. She went to school at Berklee in Boston, so I guess South Hiram’s not that far out a place to find yourself for a California bluegrass player.

People who’ve never been to Maine, and many that have, don’t understand Maine very well. They think it’s all guys with whales on their pants married to second wives with Pomeranians in their purses who live in Bar Harbor. It ain’t like that. Except for a thin strip along the coast, most of Maine is Alabama with snow. Bluegrass is close enough to country to get by out here. Because this ain’t no joke:

Philistines Gotta Philistine

According to Wiktionary, “philistine” is an adjective meaning “lacking in appreciation for art or culture.” I think that falls far short of the definition. I forget where I heard it, but the most able assessment of a philistine I’ve ever heard is someone who knows the difference between beautiful and ugly, and deliberately chooses ugly.

It’s a philistine culture, now, top to bottom. People don’t lack appreciation. They spurn it. Girls know coloring their hair with Pepto-Bismol and putting a ring in their nose is ugly. That’s why they do it. When abstract standards of right and wrong go out the window, standards of etiquette and taste go out with the same bathwater.

I know I’ve mentioned it here several times, but Frank Gehry has done more harm to the human race than psoriasis. He knows his structures are ugly, no matter what he says publicly. That’s the point. Believe me, I know it’s hard to make a beautiful, sturdy, useful building of almost any size. Guys like Gehry understand it’s much easier to make an ugly one, and say, I meant to do that, where’s my check? It’s hideous. Ain’t it grand?

I’ve likewise pilloried the architectural style that makes Gehry the Larry Fine of the drafting table: Brutalism. I could paste in a long description of Brutalist Architecture, but I’ll save us all some time and sum it up thusly: Commies love concrete. Brutalist architecture doesn’t just spurn the wants and desires of people who enter or pass by their abominations. Brutalist architecture denies the essential humanity of humanity itself. It is the design motif of the prison, the abattoir, the death camp, the Stasi office, the nuclear fuel dump, and various colleges that produce students who like to bomb road races, like UMass Dartmouth.

So Boston City Hall is the ugliest building in the world, maybe. I can live with that. The government got big, and the people got small, so the kind of statement it makes is inevitable. But I can’t stand by and see anyone praise Brutalist churches and get away with it. Here dezeen magazine, which has to be dezeen to be believed:

Sacred Modernity showcases “unique beauty and architectural innovation” of brutalist churches

It showcases, something, alright, the same way overweight plumbers showcase things when they’re crouching in front of your sink.

Here are two examples. I chose them at random, basically. They’re all equally bad ideas, like speed dating at a carnival sideshow:

I’d mention the first one is plagiarized from the torture scene from Brazil, but what’s the point? They’d probably give the architect a raise if they hear that. The second, a concrete Tetris game gone bad, looks like the plans for a maximum security prison that got wrinkled in a paper jam in the fax machine, and they built it that way anyway.

I’m not disappointed in the architects. They’re jerks. Jerks gotta jerk. It’s the churches that paid for these monstrosities that should be ashamed of themselves. But then again, those churches have all lost their nerve and don’t even mention society’s obligations to each other, or to posterity anymore. Let’s look at a snippet from the article praising these sacred seawalls gone rogue, and see if we can grok where they’re coming from, man:

“In essence, the experience of encountering brutalist churches often involves a transformation from scepticism to appreciation, as individuals are confronted with the unique beauty and architectural innovation that these structures represent.”

Yup. Even he knows it’s crap, but bangs on his brain to convince himself to pretend it isn’t. Philistines gotta philistine.

AI Hijinks

I’m not sure we’ve settled on a name for Artificial Intelligence stuff, probably because it really isn’t very intelligent. It’s mostly a massive version of autofill, which is useful enough, I suppose. If you don’t want to (I don’t), you never have to look at Gargle again.

Some call it LLM, for large language models, but that doesn’t encompass what the script kiddies are doing with images and video. Gargle has settled on “generative ai” for non-textual stuff, but their stuff is so locked down they’re not going to be where the action is. If you head on over to Hugging Face, or whatever Stable Diffusion is calling itself nowadays, you’ll see tinkerers tinkering with all sorts of speech to image, image enhancement and melding, music generation,and general messing around with probabilities. The Wikiup likes the term “deep learning,” Deep learning being a subset of machine learning being a subset of artificial intelligence.

Whatever you want to call it, the usual suspects are taking the ball and running with it. First and foremost, they want to use everything they can lay their hands on to have fun. This sure is fun: How about a movie trailer for Alien, as if it were a 1950s movie?

Another outfit did the same with Aliens:

The limitations of the amount of video you can produce in a single snippet isn’t a problem when you’re making a film trailer. They’re almost uniformly stitched together from two or three second images. Every once in a while, you see what has been called a “hallucination.” That’s the term for when the generative AI wigs out a bit, and just inserts any old thing for reasons obscure. They have an especially hard time with hands, but then again so did Van Gogh.

There are a hearty handful of people churning out these homages. They’re all sort of fun. But the funny thing about them is that while the kids are getting the CGI (for want of a better term) right, they don’t really know anything about the 1950s, and they get the text, voiceovers, and fonts all wrong for the era. Even the vibe is off. Here’s a real 1950s movie trailer to compare:

Movies from the 1950s didn’t have CGI, or machine learning. Hell, they didn’t always have color. But they made the chariot race in Ben Hur, and Marilyn Monroe’s dress blow up on a subway grate, among many other terrific bits of entertainment, and without much doctoring to the film. With better tools, you’re supposed to be able to do a better job. I’ll raise my hand when you get there, kids. Keep going.

Month: April 2024

Find Stuff:

Archives