मेघदूत: "नीचैर्गच्छत्युपरि दशा चक्रनेमिक्रमेण"

समर्थ शिष्या अक्का : "स्वामीच्या कृपाप्रसादे हे सर्व नश्वर आहे असे समजले. पण या नश्वरात तमाशा बहुत आहे."

G C Lichtenberg: “It is as if our languages were confounded: when we want a thought, they bring us a word; when we ask for a word, they give us a dash; and when we expect a dash, there comes a piece of bawdy.”

C. P. Cavafy: "I’d rather look at things than speak about them."

Martin Amis: “Gogol is funny, Tolstoy in his merciless clarity is funny, and Dostoyevsky, funnily enough, is very funny indeed; moreover, the final generation of Russian literature, before it was destroyed by Lenin and Stalin, remained emphatically comic — Bunin, Bely, Bulgakov, Zamyatin. The novel is comic because life is comic (until the inevitable tragedy of the fifth act);...”

सदानंद रेगे: "... पण तुकारामाची गाथा ज्या धुंदीनं आजपर्यंत वाचली जात होती ती धुंदी माझ्याकडे नाहीय. ती मला येऊच शकत नाही याचं कारण स्वभावतःच मी नास्तिक आहे."

".. त्यामुळं आपण त्या दारिद्र्याच्या अनुभवापलीकडे जाऊच शकत नाही. तुम्ही जर अलीकडची सगळी पुस्तके पाहिलीत...तर त्यांच्यामध्ये त्याच्याखेरीज दुसरं काही नाहीच आहे. म्हणजे माणसांच्या नात्यानात्यांतील जी सूक्ष्मता आहे ती क्वचित चितारलेली तुम्हाला दिसेल. कारण हा जो अनुभव आहे... आपले जे अनुभव आहेत ते ढोबळ प्रकारचे आहेत....."

Kenneth Goldsmith: "In 1969 the conceptual artist Douglas Huebler wrote, “The world is full of objects, more or less interesting; I do not wish to add any more.”1 I’ve come to embrace Huebler’s ideas, though it might be retooled as “The world is full of texts, more or less interesting; I do not wish to add any more.” It seems an appropriate response to a new condition in writing today: faced with an unprecedented amount of available text, the problem is not needing to write more of it; instead, we must learn to negotiate the vast quantity that exists. How I make my way through this thicket of information—how I manage it, how I parse it, how I organize and distribute it—is what distinguishes my writing from yours."

Tom Wolfe: "The first line of the doctors’ Hippocratic oath is ‘First, do no harm.’ And I think for the writers it would be: ‘First, entertain.’"

विलास सारंग: "… . . 1000 नंतर ज्या प्रकारची संस्कृती रुढ झाली , त्यामध्ये साधारणत्व विश्वात्मकता हे गुण प्राय: लुप्त झाले...आपली संस्कृती अकाली विश्वात्मक साधारणतेला मुकली आहे."

Monday, October 13, 2025

Joseph L Mankiewicz's All About Eve@75...Entertainment, Egos and Errection

Sam Staggs writes in his book  'All About All About Eve: The Complete Behind-The-Scenes Story of the Bitchiest Film Ever Made!', 2000:

 

"...Celeste Holm, in her apartment on Central Park West, answered the phone herself. After hearing a description of the book in progress, titled All About All About Eve, she asked, “Why the hell do you want to write that book?”

“Why? Because millions of people love the movie. And also because no one has told the story of how it came about and why All About Eve is considered both a Hollywood classic and a cult film.”

“I don’t get it,” she snapped. “A work of art speaks for itself! I think a book like that is a waste of time. If people are interested, let them see the movie.”

“I’ve seen it thirty times.”

“Then see it thirty more!”

“Look, Miss Holm, it’s not backstairs gossip I’m after. But since Mankiewicz lost all his papers in the fire—”

“I guess you want to talk to me about Bette Davis?” Celeste Holm demanded, and without waiting for an answer she continued. “I’ve talked to everybody in the world about that movie!”

“Bette Davis? No. I’d rather hear about you.”

“All this crap about books—I don’t get it.”

“Suppose I send you a detailed letter about the book. Your memories of shooting All About Eve are important.”

“Well … maybe. I don’t know. Good-bye.”

She never answered the letter...."

 

courtesy: Alejandro Mogollo Art

from left: Anne Baxter, Bette Davis, Thelma Ritter

So much acting talent, doing substantive roles, has seldom come together before and after on silver screen.

Robert Gore-Langton writes in the Spectator, UK on January 26 2019:

"...In 1950, Bette Davis had a string of recent flops behind her. She was 41, married to an embarrassing twerp (her third husband), and her career was spiralling above the plughole. She only got the lead part in All About Eve when Claudette Colbert — who was all signed up — ruptured a disc while doing a rape scene on another film. The story goes that with Colbert shrieking in traction, the producer Darryl Zanuck, who hadn’t spoken to Davis since using the words ‘You’ll never work in this town again’, was obliged to offer her the part. It didn’t take much. No sane actress could resist Joseph L. Mankiewicz’s fabulous script with its sophisticated wit and refreshing cynicism. Davis literally kissed the script and leapt at the part of the Broadway diva Margo Channing. It did her libido a power of good. She had a thing about men with hairy backs and immediately had an affair with her on-screen partner, the hirsute Gary Merrill, who later said he spent three days walking around the set trying to hide a permanent erection...."

Saturday, October 11, 2025

शंभर वर्षांपूर्वी माधव जूलियन यांनी डेक्कन एज्युकेशन सोसायटीच्या आजीव सभासदत्वाचा राजीनामा दिला...James Shapiro's The Year of Lear: Shakespeare in 1606

माधव जूलियन यांनी ११ ऑक्टोबर १९२५ डेक्कन एज्युकेशन सोसायटीच्या आजीव सभासदत्वाचा राजीनामा दिला. ते त्याच दिवशी संध्याकाळी कवि गिरीश यांच्याकडे गेले होते. त्यांची मनस्थिती अत्यंत वाईट होती. 

त्यांनी गिरीश यांच्या कडून शेक्सपिअर चे किंग लिअर नाटक घेऊन , एका पानावर थांबून , हा भाग मोठ्याने म्हटला:  

"Thou rascal beadle, hold thy bloody hand.

Why dost thou lash that whore? Strip thine own back.

Thy blood as hotly lusts to use her in that kind

For which thou whip’st her. The usurer hangs the cozener.

Through tattered clothes great vices do appear;

Robes and furred gowns hide all. Plate sin with gold,

And the strong lance of justice hurtless breaks.

Arm it in rags, a pigmy’s straw does pierce it ." (20.154–59)

वाचून होताच पुस्तक भिंतीवर फेकून मारले आणि म्हणाले 'That's why Shakespeare is great'... 

(' माधव जूलियन', ले: गं. दे. खानोलकर, १९५१-१९६८, पृष्ठे: १५१-१५२)

 This passage reflects Lear’s growing awareness of hypocrisy and corruption in society, particularly how wealth and status shield the guilty while the poor are harshly judged. 

 शेक्सपिअर च्या ओळींचा अर्थ साधारण असा: 

“You rascally officer, restrain your bloody hands! Why are you whipping that whore? Whip your own back instead. You lust after her and long to use her for the same crime you're whipping her for. The loanshark hangs the cheater. It's easy to see sins through tattered clothes, but rich robes and gowns hide everything. Cover up a sin with gold, and the mighty sword of justice can't touch it. But dress a sin in rags, and even a piece of straw can pierce it.”

 विशेष म्हणजे शेक्सपिअर यांचे मोठे अभ्यासक, उत्तम लेखक  James Shapiro त्यांच्या 'The Year of Lear: Shakespeare in 1606', २०१५ या पुस्तकात सुद्धा ह्याच ओळींबाबत लिहतात:

"... Shakespeare’s engagement with Harsnett’s book deepens over the course of King Lear. The abuse of authority, so transparent in page after page of the Declaration, is a kind of nightmare that Lear at last comes to recognize. For Lear—and for playgoers—at play’s end, authority is shown to be arbitrary, its “great image” a beggar running from a barking dog (20.149–53). In what is arguably the most explicit piece of social criticism in all of his work, Shakespeare has Lear conclude that violence, deception, and hypocrisy in the kingdom are endemic:

Thou rascal beadle, hold thy bloody hand.

Why dost thou lash that whore? Strip thine own back.

Thy blood as hotly lusts to use her in that kind

For which thou whip’st her. The usurer hangs the cozener.

Through tattered robes small vices do appear;

Robes and furred gowns hides all.

(20.154–59)

There is the evil that stems from the abuse of authority and there is another kind that cannot be so easily explained by self-interest and the human propensity for cruelty. In King Lear, Shakespeare wrestles with the nature of this kind of evil as well, something that Harsnett, in a book about the demonic, takes as a given but never confronts. Historical events would soon ensure that this question would take on even greater relevance as Shakespeare was finishing King Lear that winter. And he wasn’t done with Harsnett quite yet, or with questions of possession, bewitching, or where evil originates."

 (Chapter 4, Possession)

खानोलकरांचे पुस्तक वाचून आपल्याला पुरेपूर खात्री पटते की माधव जूलियन यांना स्वतःची  त्यावेळची मनस्थिती वर्णायला किंग लिअर पेक्षा चांगले पुस्तक  सापडले नसते.... 

                                                       (वरील कविता बा सी  मर्ढेकरांची, असंग्रहित)

माधवराव पटवर्धनांची बंडखोरी अनेक पांढरपेशा लोकांना प्रेरित करून गेली आणि पुढे सुद्धा करत राहिली ...मला असे वाटते की माझ्या वडिलांच्या जीवनाचे अनेक पैलू माधवरावांच्या आयुष्यावर आधारित होते.. 

वडिलांशी मतभेद , कॉलेजच्या संचालकांबरोबर मतभेद , बायकोपासून दूर राहून नोकरी करत राहणे , उमर खय्याम बद्दल वाटणारे  प्रेम , पटकन प्रेमात आणि बाहेर पडायची वृत्ती, इंग्रजी साहित्यावरील पकड , स्वभावाची चिडचिड  वगैरे