Tag: New York

  • Sir Anthony Hopkins, outsider actor

    Sir Anthony Hopkins, outsider actor

    Yes, Sir Anthony Hopkins did have a life before The Silence of the Lambs. And after it, too. But most casual moviegoers would be hard pressed to add too many other entries to his filmography. Like his most famous screen creation, the cannibalistic serial killer Hannibal Lecter, Hopkins has always been something of a study in contrasts. As an actor, he sits in the middle of the Venn diagram where the mainstream and the fringe overlap, seemingly as happy to mug his way through the Transformers franchise as to direct and star in a project like 1996’s August, a drily worthy adaptation of Uncle Vanya that barely registered on the sordidly commercial level.

    He has done all this through a powerful mix of supreme professionalism (he’s the sort of actor who knows not only his own lines, but everyone else’s, too), constant work, versatility and setting himself slightly apart from the other cast members. “I don’t have a single friend who’s an actor,” he writes by way of self-analysis, of which there’s quite a lot.

    Indeed, Hopkins lingers on his own unloveliness, at least up to the point in his life, around his 40th birthday, when he quit alcohol. A youthful brawler both on the streets of his native South Wales and while doing National Service in the British army, he was once asked by a sympathetic commanding officer why he behaved as he did. “I don’t know, sir,” Hopkins replied. “I just seem to cause trouble. I’m a bit stupid.” The fractious reputation followed him through his early days in semi professional provincial theater and then the refined halls of London’s Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts.

    Hopkins’s talent was obvious, and in due course he was spotted by Laurence Olivier, who made him his understudy in a production of August Strindberg’s The Dance of Death. After he stood in for the great man one night, Olivier complimented him for having “walked away with the part like a cat with a mouse between his teeth.” But the young Hopkins was already bored by the repetition of the stage. “I began to feel that acting was just a by-product,” he writes. “I wanted to find value in the rest of my life.”

    Pleasure in someone’s performance on stage or screen carries no guarantee of personal fulfillment and, whatever his professional achievements from the mid-1960s onwards, Hopkins clearly found difficulty in getting on with the rest of the world. He walked out on his first wife and their infant daughter and remains estranged from the girl, his only child. By his own admission, he was spiteful, cynical and not a little neurotic. Arriving in New York, he fell into the habit of walking down the sides of the busy Manhattan streets rather than on the sidewalk. “If I had confessed the reason, they might have locked me up,” he writes. “I was afraid that somebody would do a suicide jump from a high window and fall on top of me.”

    And the drink. It’s a flood, at least in the first half of the book. “I became one of those good old looking-for-trouble drunks,” Hopkins says. “I was loaded and ready to go, full steam ahead, Tugboat Annie. I’m Popeye the Sailor Man, and I am what I am I am, and I’m Tony the Tiger Man, the tiger, the tiger, the tiger burning oh so bright in the Welsh forests of the night.” (There’s quite a lot more like this in the book.)

    Eventually Hopkins discovered Alcoholics Anonymous, settled down with a good woman and moved to a clifftop mansion in Malibu. He still acts, of course, although like many in his profession he apparently longs to be acclaimed for something else. As a result, there’s a generous amount here about his passion both for painting and classical music, the latter of which saw him release an album with the unambiguous title Composer. As an actor, Hopkins has always been of the less-is-more school, imbuing his most malign characters with an air of sinister control rather than going full Freddy Krueger. He brings a similar note of restraint to his memoir. There’s a good deal of reflection on his solitary upbringing in Wales and his consequent sense of being one of life’s permanent outsiders – and not much by way of riotous Hollywood anecdotage. Anyone looking for dirt on any of Hopkins’s fellow cast members may be disappointed, although he does allow himself a few disobliging remarks on the late actor Paul Sorvino (the wiseguy Paulie in Goodfellas), with whom he worked, unhappily, in Oliver Stone’s Nixon.

    When he’s on form, Hopkins’s gift for portraying the essential strangeness of the acting profession can be compared to that of Alec Guinness in his own wonderful memoirs. If you’re able to skim the occasional longueurs about man’s struggle for existence and the protracted descriptions of the way the dappled light falls through the trees, and so on, there are gems of genuine pathos awaiting discovery. Just be wary should Hopkins happen to call you with an excitable proposal about “having an old friend for dinner.”

    This article was originally published in The Spectator’s December 8, 2025 World edition.

  • Four Twenty Five’s wine list is better than most

    I was recently invited by friends to a small birthday fête at Four Twenty Five, Jean-Georges Vongerichten’s latest New York restaurant at (wouldn’t you know it) 425 Park Avenue. It was, as Bertie Wooster might have put it, oojah-cum-spiff, a worthy companion to the Terrace and Nougatine, those other famed New York refectories by Jean-Georges.

    I won’t bore you with the victuals, which were so far from boring themselves that it would take more than a column just to enumerate those toothsome morsels. Instead, let me mention a couple of the wines we enjoyed, noting for posterity that the wine list at Four Twenty Five is one of the most extensive and thoughtfully selected in New York City. I hope to have occasion to make a thorough study in the years to come.

    We started with a 2023 Alzinger Grüner Veltliner “Federspiel” from the Ried Mühlpoint vineyard, one of Alzinger’s best spots. It is a dry, light-bodied wine of about 11.5-12 percent alcohol. The year afforded a bright, sunny growing season and this is a bright and sunny wine, sophisticated but not fussy. Incidentally, the term “Federspiel” comes from falconry and refers to the bait used to lure the bird homeward. The vineyard lies on the clay and gneiss-bedded slope of the Steinertal in Wachau, Austria.

    Readers with long memories will know that the Austrian wine industry almost disappeared in the decade following the 1985 diethylene glycol scandal. Attentive quality control analysts discovered that several Austrian wineries were lacing their potations with what amounted to anti-freeze, which made the wines taste sweeter and rounder. The juice found its way to the German market and some was illegally blended with German wine. The discovery of the adulteration cratered the Austrian wine industry for a decade, but now it is back in a big way.

    Indeed, grüner veltliner, the most widely planted grape in Austria, has for some years been one of the trendier whites, and for good reason. It is notably food-friendly, complex, subtly aromatic but clean, its distinctive spiciness coming from rotundone, the peppery tasting chemical compound that is also present in syrah. I have no idea how much Jean-Georges is charging for a bottle of this grüner from the Alzinger winery since I was in the happy position of being a guest on this occasion. Out in the wild, two Andrew Jacksons ought to snag you one.

    For our main course we moved on to a wine from the Arbois appellation in Jura, the wine growing region between Burgundy and Switzerland. “Very distinctive and unusual wines”: that’s how every description of wine from the Jura begins, and rightly so. The most famous are vins jaune, fermented, as is sherry, under a flor of yeast.

    We had a 2020 Savagnin “Amphore” from Bénédicte and Stéphane Tissot (about $100 retail). The Tissots age this wine for five months in clay amphora, a process similar to that used in the production of Georgian wine, and then in large wooden casks called demi-muid. The result is a bright orange, cloudy wine that is reticulated with hints of stone fruit, black tea and cider. It is, as one commentator noted, “powerful stuff,” and not just because of its high acidity and 14.5 percent alcohol. Distinctive. Delicious. Delightful. I did not know at the time, but it turns out that DNA analysis recently revealed that grüner veltliner is a natural crossing of the savagnin grape and an obscure Austrian variety from the Burgenland region of eastern Austria, so our evening’s wine consumption had hidden interconnections.

    Grüner veltliner. Savagnin. Here’s another grape you will be hearing more about: clairette blanc. It’s prominent in many Provençal whites (you’ll also find it in wines from the Rhône and Languedoc). We’ve had occasion to sample the rosé from Domaine du Bagnol before. The white from this storied vineyard from around the ancient fishing village of Cassis is a blend of clairette blanc, ugni blanc (also called trebbiano), and roussanne. It sells for about $30. Like its Cassis neighbor Clos Sainte Magdeleine, another winner, it is a subtle, quietly aromatic wine that grows and blossoms on the palate. Cassis has been home to the vine since Greek sailors from Phocaea arrived in the 6th century BC. The wine writer and importer Kermit Lynch calls it “an earthly paradise.” When you book a trip, let me know if you require an unpaid travel companion.

    This article was originally published in The Spectator’s December 8, 2025 World edition.

  • Mamdani hires author of defund the police bible

    Mamdani hires author of defund the police bible

    Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani has debuted the transition team intended to prepare New York City Hall for its 111th mayor. The team is filled with the types of leftie loonies expected from Mamdani: a trans, anti-zionist rabbi from Brooklyn as well as a gun-control advocate dubiously associated with Nation of Islam-founder Louis Farrakhan. And then there’s Alex Vitale – a professor of sociology at Brooklyn College whose views on policing are not only disproven, they’re downright dangerous.

    Vitale is one of a handful of transition team members tasked with overseeing community safety issues. Public safety, policing and crime reduction have become flashpoints for the new Mayor, who established his political career promising to end law enforcement as we know it. Time after time, Mamdani has committed to “abolishing the police” – a phrase that gained nationwide traction following the death of Eric Garner and the #BlackLivesMatter-led race-reckoning back in 2020.

    In June, Mamdani walked back much of his “defund” rhetoric following a mass office shooting in Midtown Manhattan. “I am not defunding the police; I am not running to defund the police,” Mamdani told reporters at the time. “I’ve been very clear about my view of public safety and the critical role that the police have in creating that public safety.”

    Enter Professor Vitale.

    If there is any doubt Mayor-elect Mamdani remains committed to defunding the police it’s his choice of Vitale for his transition team’s 26-member Committee on Community Safety. Vitale literally wrote the book on the topic, The End of Policing, back in 2017. “The bestselling bible of the movement to defund the police, in an updated edition,” is how Vitale’s publisher describes the book on its homepage. “The problem is policing itself,” writes Vitale in the book itself.

    Mamdani-watchers had been hopeful that his previous anti-law enforcement policies would be blunted by his decision to retain high-profile, tough-on-crime Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch. But the selection of Vitale this week suggests that New York may be picking up, where “defund” disasters in other big cities left off. And the New Yorkers Mamdani campaigned as most championing – the poor, and black and brown – will be hit hardest if the Mamdani-administration embraces the anti-law and order policies he’s espoused for years.

    Look no further than Minneapolis, where Garner was killed by police in June 2020, to witness the failure of defund-the-police firsthand. Even before Garner’s death, progressive city activists had been working hard to reduce law enforcement. As the New York Times reported, activists confronted Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey at his home during the height of the post-Garner riots and demanded “We don’t want people with guns toting around in our community.”

    But people “toting guns” is what Minneapolis got as city officials became mired in appeasing the local activist class. Shooting victims surged by 90 percent in the year following Floyd’s death, as arrests dropped by a third. The following year, shootings rose by 101 percent – with some 83 percent of the victims (and 89 percent of the shooters) African-American, according to City of Minneapolis data.

    Similar stats were tallied in other “pro-defund” cities including Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francisco and Portland, according to a 2002 report by the Heritage Foundation.

    This vision of the future has already arrived in New York City – and Mamdani has yet to take office. Like in Minneapolis, the vast majority of violent crime in New York is committed by ethnic minorities against ethnic minorities in just a handful of crime-ridden neighborhoods. In 2022, for instance, black New Yorkers constituted 74 percent of all NYC shooting victims, despite comprising just 24 percent of the city’s population. By 2023, black New Yorkers were 18 times more likely to die from gun violence than their white counterparts, according to data from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

    Although violent crime rates have declined to record levels under current Mayor Eric Adams and Commissioner Tisch, minority communities remain outliers. Last year blacks and Hispanics comprised nearly 90 percent of shooting victims citywide, with virtually all of the shooters black and Hispanic. Meanwhile, the NYPD — which is nearly 65 percent non-white — has lost over 15,000 police officers over the past five years, and hundreds more continue to depart monthly.

    What’s most telling about the “defund” debate has been the number of minority community leaders vocally opposed to it. As early as August 2020 – just two months after BLM protests clogged city streets – high-profile black and Latino officials were blasting plans to cut $1 billion in NYPD funding. Same in Minneapolis and Philadelphia and most big cities decimated by gun violence. Most crucially, the majority of big city residents never wanted their police departments defunded, either. In fact, one year after Garner’s death, the percentage of Americans seeking an increase in police funding actually rose by 16 percent.

    With the Mamdani inauguration still more than a month away, it’s too soon to gauge whether he will fulfill his long-held belief in trading seasoned police officers for a new-fangled “Department of Community Safety” filled with social workers to tackle many public safety issues. But either way, the appointment of Vitale to his transition team suggests Mamdani has yet to fully step-back from his long-held anti-policing views. Should he not, violent crime and gun deaths will be the inevitable consequences – with white New Yorkers like Professor Vitale mostly insulated from the carnage.

  • Andrew Cuomo was the spoiler, not me

    In the final weeks of the New York City mayoral campaign, there was heavy involvement from billionaires and masters of the universe. Donald Trump and Elon Musk joined the chorus of the Democratic Establishment. And the message was clear: a vote for me was a vote for Mamdani. There was a 72-hour barrage from super PACs running this message on conservative radio and news shows in an attempt to convince Republicans and conservatives to abandon their beliefs and principles and effectively join the Democratic party. No longer was the focus on what each candidate stood for. The point was to rewrite history and distance fact from reality.

    We had Andrew Cuomo – a failed governor who left office in disgrace – being presented to the public as NYC’s only savior. He was the architect of “no cash bail,” “raise the age” and the man who sent more than 15,000 seniors to their graves because of his Covid nursing-home mandates. Yet here he was, repackaged to Republicans as the only candidate they could rally behind. Really? The most important initiatives Cuomo stood for were things the Republicans he was openly and aggressively courting stood against. On virtually every issue, I stood alone with the principles of the party. When you abandon Republican principles in this way, what do you get? A weakened and fractured party met by a strengthened opposition, the face of which has become Zohran Mamdani.

    Zohran never wanted to run against me, Eric Adams or Cuomo; he wanted to run against Donald Trump. He knows he will not be able to fulfill his promises: his fallback will always be that “Trump prevented us from doing this” and “Trump is the reason we are suffering.” He can make Trump the problem plaguing New York City, rather than admitting that he spun a web of fantasies.

    The Democratic Socialists of America’s goal in New York was to rupture the status quo, undermine independent Republicans and conservatives by separating them from the core of their beliefs and create a frenzied state in which the electorate was positioned not to support the person who represented their values, but to act from a mindset of fear. As it turned out, Cuomo was the spoiler, not me. Even if he had taken every vote that went to me, he still would have lost – again. He was trounced in the Democratic primary and his failed attempt to siphon off Republicans left him on the outside.

    I continue to focus on what matters. First, I realize we are witnessing a generational change in politics. No longer are the baby boomers the loudest voices in the room. Making sure younger voters know what you stand for is essential. I was able to harness the reach of my existing social media platforms thanks to my campaign team, which was primarily made up of millennials. As a proponent of retail politics, I spent nine months on the campaign trail in every borough of NYC. Our team ensured that for every hand I couldn’t shake, someone who wanted to learn more about my policies could do so online.

    I also realized that accessibility is key. In the final week of the election, I was invited to Baruch College by Turning Point USA to participate in a debate with students. This type of open conversation with young voters is a must. It was an excellent, peaceful debate at a liberal college, so even though some may not have been on board, they came away with a better understanding of where I stood. You can’t be afraid to go into a hostile environment: it’s the only way to hear every voice.

    Last, and most importantly, I have learned that standing by one’s beliefs is paramount, in politics as in every part of life. I called myself the “Mayor of the People” because I stood with the working class on the issues that mattered most to them. I was realistic in my approach to fiscal responsibility to elevate NYC. I didn’t promise free things I knew could never be delivered. I stood up for the rights of animals and the majority of people with pets who consider them family because I believe a good leader is strong, caring and compassionate. So, while this mayoral election was plagued by calls to abandon party, belief and principles, I stood firm. I continue to stand firm in uniting people with the message to “improve, not move.” I hope all New Yorkers will hear it. 

    This article was originally published in The Spectator’s November 24, 2025 World edition.

  • Rauschenberg is a bore

    Rauschenberg is a bore

    Pity the security guard at the Guggenheim who must patrol the gallery in which Robert Rauschenberg: Life Can’t Be Stopped is installed. Mounted in commemoration of the artist’s centennial – Rauschenberg was born in Port Arthur, Texas, in October 1925 – Life Can’t Be Stopped includes “Revolver II” (1967), a set of plexiglass discs with images overlaid. A cord leads from the back of this contraption to a pedestal on which there is a control panel – a set of buttons placed in proximity to the viewer. These switches set the plexiglass discs in motion, and they beg to be pushed. On my trip to the museum, visitor after visitor was shushed away from “Revolver II” with the age-old plaint: “Please don’t touch the art.” We were informed that a designated button-pusher would do the honors at unscheduled times during the day. What fun is that?

    That dour, party-pooping spirit pervades this 100th birthday fête. The Guggenheim extols Rauschenberg as a figure “whose influence on contemporary art remains immeasurable.” Maybe so, but what good has that influence been?

    As part of the festivities, a one-night event included performances by the dance companies of Trisha Brown and Paul Taylor, choreographers for whom Rauschenberg provided stage settings. For Taylor, Rauschenberg created “Tracer” (1962), a spinning bicycle wheel here accompanied by music by James Tenney. “Tracer” is an obvious homage to “Bicycle Wheel “(1916-17), a ready-made object by the grandpère of anti-art, Marcel Duchamp.

    Rauschenberg’s oeuvre is inconceivable without the example set by Duchamp, a cigar-smoking gadfly whose specialty was upsetting the preconceptions of a cultural elite that he was very much a part of. The irony is that the dadaist kingpin had an eye sharp enough to realize that he possessed neither the imagination nor the gumption to compete with such contemporaries as Brâncuşi, Matisse and Picasso. The Duchampian corpus is small: he spent much of his life playing chess. Rauschenberg does not possess any similarly redeeming self-awareness. Duchamp lived to see a younger generation take inspiration from a mode of artmaking specifically contrived to undermine it. Did he take pride in his progeny? Hardly: Duchamp was skeptical of their efforts. Neo-dadaists, he averred, were taking “an easy way out.” He had thrown a bicycle wheel and a urinal into the establishment’s face “as a challenge, and now they admire them for their aesthetic beauty.”

    Nose-thumbing is irresistible and can be profitable in an art market that often mistakes provocation for aesthetic worth. Every time a stray wit duct-tapes a banana to a wall and calls it art (see “Comedian” by Maurizio Catellan), a line can be traced to Duchamp. Before it reaches Duchamp, however, that line would run through Rauschenberg, the man who made anti-art safe for mass consumption. Dada with a smiley face – Bob’s our man.

    The die was cast in 1953, when Rauschenberg the precocious Texan erased a drawing by the painter Willem de Kooning and appropriated it as his own work, to wit: “Erased de Kooning Drawing.” A Duchampian stunt of the first order, you might think, but the gesture was not altogether nihilistic. Duchamp’s cynicism had a certain integrity; he pulled from European intellectual debates. Rauschenberg, in contrast, was as American as apple pie.

    Rauschenberg’s earliest and best work is marked by a can-do positivity, a kind of free-for-all optimism that became increasingly codified as success while his small talent transformed into an international industry. The young Rauschenberg is in scant evidence at the Guggenheim, though pieces such as “Untitled (Red Painting)” (c. 1953) and “Untitled (Hotel Bilbao)” (c. 1952) evince a rough-hewn approach to materials gleaned from the German collage artist Kurt Schwitters. A sense of play and, at moments, a sort of tenderness is palpable.

    Rauschenberg’s initial efforts at drawings made with solvent transfer – a process whereby printed materials are applied to a surface by soaking them with water and chemicals – were similarly endowed with a promiscuous curiosity and scope. But once he got a handle on this method, it became considerably less winning. Rauschenberg coasted on its second-hand appeal, submitting a surfeit of grainy news photos to grid-like superstructures and then punctuating them with brushwork mimicking the rough-and-tumble verities of abstract expressionism. “Expert,” this kind of thing is called again and again; over the long haul, it is deadening.

    The centerpiece of Life Can’t Be Stopped is “Barge” (1962-63), a black-and-white canvas that measures five feet high by a whopping 32 feet in width. Completed in a 24-hour period, this piece found Rauschenberg adopting a commercial printing technique introduced to him by Andy Warhol. Time isn’t necessarily an indicator of aesthetic worth – better works have been made in fewer hours – but taking advice from Warhol only brought out the worst in Rauschenberg. Tactility and enthusiasm were subsequently sacrificed for efficiency. The resultant diminution of material and aesthetic necessity is fatal.

    As it is, “Barge” is a glibly articulated compendium of diagrams, football-game footage, photos of space vehicles and – should these items not be arbitrary enough – a reproduction of “Venus at Her Mirror” by Diego Velázquez. “This monumental piece,” the Guggenheim tells us, “makes its highly anticipated return to New York for the first time in nearly 25 years.”

    Public-relations hyperbole is one thing, but it’s doubtful that a work as dead-on-arrival as “Barge” is capable of prompting a response from even the most ardent Rauschenberg fan. There are better ways to celebrate a birthday than Life Can’t Be Stopped.

    This article was originally published in The Spectator’s November 24, 2025 World edition.

  • Man Ray is alluring in the way a psychopath is

    Man Ray is alluring in the way a psychopath is

    Down to his chosen name, Man Ray (born Emmanuel Radnitzky in Philadelphia in 1890) worked hard to squash anything about him you might call human. At least that’s what is suggested by the Met’s exhibition Man Ray: When Objects Dream. The show spans much of his career – he was associated with surrealism and dada, held a day job as a commercial photographer and experimented with almost every medium imaginable – but coheres around his so-called rayographs, also known, in less egotistical fashion, as photograms.

    Many will know this medium from elementary school: place objects on top of a light-sensitive sheet and expose them to light to yield white silhouettes against a dark background. These and the other works on view are weird and alluring in the way that a sleek, beautiful sociopath is.

    The show floats around the artist’s career from about the mid-1910s to the mid-1930s, by which time he had achieved avant-garde stardom. We find mechanistic, brutish paintings of color planes; airbrushed canvases with all the technical shortcomings of a Magritte and little of the charm; cliché-verres of spindly, dancing lines; “primitive” sculptures; a slick chess board; and much more. A mobile of cascading clothes hangers casts a rotating, crystalline shadow on the floor. A pair of 1918-20 photographs titled “L’homme” and “La femme” – an eggbeater and an assemblage including two side-by-side reflectors, respectively – are chuckle-worthy in their anatomical punning but slightly sinister, not least because Man Ray at one point switched their titles. There’s a void at the heart of these works. It’s not that the artist is trying to conceal the artist’s hand; it’s that whatever hand is there isn’t quite human.

    The central room holds most of the rayographs, rectangles of rich black hues hung on black walls. The white negative space takes the shape of combs, cones, eggs, nails, the cubic limits of crystal prisms, even two ghostly banjos, fuzzy with translucent drums and rings of reflective chrome. Also displayed here is one of the exhibition’s several films: “Le retour à la raison” (1923), a scattershot series of reverse silhouettes. Most of the reel was developed using the same method as the rayographs, but the images are interspersed with shots including a headless woman’s nude torso. The film reveals that the pictures sometimes work better when they flash by quickly rather than when they linger. What’s striking about the rayographs is that they look as if they were made by someone who doesn’t quite know what household objects are used for – or who wants to make everyone else forget. Q-tips, matches, a wing bolt attached to a screw – we can no longer recognize them by their utility, let alone imagine picking them up. Each object is hollowed of its purpose; only outline remains. As each object’s human ends are washed away, so too is its essence.

    The exhibition’s insight is in linking the rayographs to the other realms of Man Ray’s oeuvre: the curators, Stephanie D’Alessandro and Stephen C. Pinson, make clear that this was all conceived by the same mind. Exit the rayograph galleries and take a look at the infamous “Cadeau” (1921), a flatiron with a cruel line of tacks glued to its face. Initially, you may see glimmers of humor, play or strange magic. But those soon fade, leaving only the cold glint of alienation. It’s no comfort to read André Breton, the author of the first Surrealist Manifesto, writing that Man Ray treated his human subjects just like his nonhuman ones: “How astonished they would be if I told them they are participants for exactly the same reasons as a quartz gun, a bunch of keys, hoar-frost or fern!”

    Though Breton’s writings recur throughout the show, Man Ray never officially joined the surrealists’ ranks. He also dipped in and out of dada, the iconoclastic movement whose founder, Tristan Tzara, lavished the rayographs with praise, providing the title for the exhibition. The catalog cites Man Ray’s “aversion to anything ‘beyond the control of one man,’ meaning himself.” This could just as well explain the artist’s attempt to treat his human subjects as virtually inanimate. What’s beyond the control of one man if not another man?

    Despite refusing to carry any membership cards, however, Man Ray did photograph the surrealists’ “sleeping fits,” induced trances during which they documented the visions that came to them. He later said of the sessions, in which he declined to participate, “It has never been my object to record my dreams, just the determination to realize them.” The question hangs in the air: what’s the difference? We record our dreams to refer back to them, with the aim to understand the waking world as much as the sleeping one. But to realize a dream is to form the waking world in its mold. If these works are what Man Ray’s dreams look like, that’s not so innocent a wish.

    This article was originally published in The Spectator’s November 24, 2025 World edition.

  • A new Phantom comes to Broadway

    A new Phantom comes to Broadway

    Around midway through Masquerade – the new immersive adaptation of The Phantom of the Opera, which sees a small audience whirled through a labyrinth of rooms and sets – I feel a hand on my shoulder. Smiling, I turn, expecting to see my friend – and immediately recoil.

    A tiny circus freak grins at me, revealing teeth like sharpened screwdrivers and a painted face lifted straight from Día de los Muertos. Later, in a carnival scene, that same freak hammers three nails into her face and an ice-pick up her nose.

    The carnival sequence is not in the original Phantom. It is one of the largest and perhaps most important of Masquerade’s additions. In it, we see the Phantom’s origin story: a young, malformed man is locked in a cage; a burlap sack is tied over his head, to be gawked at by paying customers. He is rendered literally faceless.

    When his keeper lets him out to remove the sack and do the big “reveal” to the crowds, he escapes. We follow him, scrabbling away from his weeping owner (“he was like a son to me!”), to the Paris Opera. There, he hides away in the bowels of the building – a loner, until he becomes infatuated with the chorus girl Christine.

    The episode elicits sympathy and explains the Phantom’s destructive behavior. He is, after all, a killer, stalker and kidnapper. Most importantly, it makes Masquerade squarely the Phantom’s show: he is misunderstood, rather than evil.

    The Phantom of the Opera closed on Broadway in 2023 after a 35-year run. Diane Paulus, creator and director of Masquerade, attempts to fill the void with a giant exercise in fan-fiction that cleverly submerges the audience into the story – sometimes as flies on the wall, sometimes as actual players. It’s fabulous, fun and fantastically extravagant.

    Set across six stories of an empty19th-century building in New York City, the experience is spiritually akin to Punchdrunk’s Sleep No More, but rather than being a “choose your own adventure,” the plot is already laid out, and the audience – who are also masked and must wear black, silver or white formal attire – is tightly guided from room to room.

    Everything is done on a grand scale: we dash up and down escalators, in and out of rooms, past artworks and scenery that we barely have time to take in. But, despite its sheer scope and magnitude, Masquerade succeeds because it feels so intimate. We’re here with Christine as she prepares for a performance in her small, cramped dressing room. We can reach out to touch the Phantom in his cage. We are underneath the chandelier before it crashes to the floor. “I’m glad you made it!” one of the side characters tells me, his hand fleetingly on my shoulder and his eyes locked on mine for just a second before he runs past.

    Nowhere is this intimacy more apparent, though, then when it comes to the theme of lust. Our Christine, the young innocent who attracts the destructive forces of the night, is both intellectually and socially revolted by her suitor even as she finds herself irresistibly drawn to him and sexually awakened by his presence.

    Paulus turns up these motifs of repressed desires to the max – not least in a scene where we creep up on Christine in bed. As she sleeps in a virginal, white – and very wispy – nightgown, the Phantom’s hand appears from behind to caress her. She arches her back and parts her lips. It’s embarrassingly sensual, casting us as the voyeurs. The Phantom may be ugly compared to Christine’s handsome but bland suitor, Raoul. But the Phantom offers her sex, danger and a voice.

    Song, of course, matters in a musical and although the instrumentals in Masquerade are prerecorded (there’s no space for an orchestra on the move), the cast’s voices are big and their performances heartfelt, if at times mawkishly sentimental. When I visited, the very youthful and very talented Anna Zavelson played Christine as beguilingly naive and wide-eyed, opposite the always-convincing and often-debonair Jeff Kready as the Phantom.

    It was only when we were spat out into an ornate gothic-styled cocktail bar at the end of the show that I saw the hundreds of other people who had attended the same night as me – and realized they had been in the building with us the whole time. (“Where did they all come from?” my companion asked).

    In fact, audiences of 60 people at a time enter the building 15 minutes apart, with six Phantoms and Christines, and three Raouls, performing for six separate groups (many of the other actors rotate their roles between all six performances). That we never overlap, even during moments of transition, is extraordinary.

    And yet the most moving scenes for me came when we shed the elaborate sets and climbed outside into the chilly fall air on the building’s roof. There, among the skyscrapers and office buildings of Manhattan, we hear Christine and Raoul sing a love song to each other. Later, Christine aches for her dead father as a lone violinist disappears into a mausoleum in the sky. It is a moment that asks us to use our imaginations and to lean in – to the romance, to the melodrama, to the grief, to the histrionics and, yes, to the silliness. In a maximalist show, full of pizazz and ambition, we could finally take a breath.

    This article was originally published in The Spectator’s November 24, 2025 World edition.

  • The anti-Masonic roots of the Republican party

    The anti-Masonic roots of the Republican party

    I suppose the big anniversary event of the coming new year is the semi-quincentennial of the American Revolution. I’m all for celebrating revolution and secession but spare a good thought for the bicentennial we’ll be celebrating hereabouts in 2026: that of the Morgan Affair, featuring betrayal, a possible murder, an enduring mystery and a political eruption whose ejecta would one day help form the Republican party.

    I’m writing this while sitting on the polished granite bench in the Batavia Cemetery dedicated to my late friend and swimming teacher Catherine Roth, grande dame, who waged a righteously “wrothful” battle against the urban renewers who razed and ruined so much of downtown Batavia, New York, in the 1960s and 1970s. (Greatest Generation my ass!)

    Through the bare boughs of the towering maples, I espy the cenotaph honoring our town’s most famous drunk, Captain William Morgan, who was no more a captain than Harland Sanders was a colonel. Nor was he the eponym of the sorority-girl rum. Rather, Morgan was an apostate member of the Masonic Order who was – or was he? – kidnapped by Masons, furious that he had revealed their rituals, and drowned in the Niagara River in 1826, thereby setting off a ferocious reaction against “secret societies” and begetting the Anti-Masonic party, the first third party in American political history.

    William Morgan was one of those ne’er-do-wells whom Fate or Providence elect to martyrdom. (Or, if the cynical Masons are correct, sham martyrdom of the Jim Morrison-lounged-around-Paris-for-the-next-50-years variety.)

    Morgan, a footloose stonemason (ironically), had been initiated into the LeRoy, New York, chapter of the ancient fraternal order in 1825. He moved the following year to nearby Batavia, whose more fastidious Masonic chapter rejected the application of a man they regarded as an indolent blowhard. Plotting revenge, Morgan vowed to expose the inner workings of Masonry. For this the renegade was kidnapped and on September 11 – there’s that date again – he disappeared.

    Morgan’s book, Freemasonry Exposed and Explained, described the order’s sadomasochistic-flavored initiation rites (the votive’s naked breast is spiked with the point of a compass) and lurid punishments for vocal apostasy: “To have my throat cut across, my tongue torn out by the roots and my body buried in the rough sands of the sea at low water-mark.” Ouch!

    “Like wildfire” doesn’t begin to capture the incendiary public response to Morgan’s alleged murder. Masonry was arraigned as an elitist, possibly Satanic entity bent on subverting the republic. After all, its tentacles reached throughout the ruling class: New York Governor DeWitt Clinton was a Mason, as were numerous Founders, among them George Washington and Ben Franklin.

    Within a year, Anti-Masons were being elected to the New York State Assembly. By 1830, the party had sent members to Congress and captured the governorship of Vermont. In my home of rural Genesee County, Anti-Masons held every countywide office from 1827-33. The party’s 1832 presidential candidate, William Wirt, even carried Vermont. (That Wirt was a Mason suggests the complications to come.)

    As will happen, the more picturesque and flamboyant Anti-Masons – who were wont to refer to Masonry as “the Beast with seven heads and ten horns” – were displaced by scheming politicos. The party was taken over by the wily political operators Thurlow Weed and William Seward, later leading lights in the Republican party, who essentially purged the Anti-Masonic party of anti-Masonry, replacing the purpose embedded in its very name with a dirigiste agenda of internal improvements and a national bank.

    The party did leave us some truly rousing campaign songs. One of my favorites begins, “The Freemen bring the monster/ Before the public place it/ And though it scowl with phiz most foul/ Will Anti-Masons face it.” Another concludes, “Tis Morgan whose blood still proclaims from the ground/ That life is in peril where Masonry’s found.” Talk about demonizing one’s foes! (As historian Lee Benson wrote, understatedly, “Anti-Masons tended not to believe in venial sins.”)

    So what did it all mean? American Masonry was decimated, especially in the Northeast, though it would eventually return as an inoffensive civic-minded organization, sponsor of Little League teams and blood drives and the like. William Morgan’s body was never found. Perhaps he slept with the fishes, though to this day Masons insist that he escaped and found refuge in Canada or the Caribbean. His memory lives here, though, embodied in the cenotaph upon which I gaze.

    Finally, we can’t forget Morgan’s fetching young wife, Lucinda, who evidently had a thing for notorious Upstate New Yorkers. She later became one of Mormonism founder Joseph Smith’s plural wives. Smith, too, was murdered. That gal was bad, bad luck.

    This article was originally published in The Spectator’s November 24, 2025 World edition.

  • Why is it only left-wing leaders who are allowed to be young?

    Why is it only left-wing leaders who are allowed to be young?

    There was a time when the French left turned its nose up at all things American. Too low-brow for them. Not now. The victory of Zohran Mamdani in the New York mayoral race has caused much joie de vivre in left-circles.

    Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the Gallic Bernie Saunders and the leader of the far-left La France Insoumise, described Mamdani’s win as “very good news.”

    The general secretary of the center-left Socialist party, Olivier Faure, posted a smiley face on X above a headline in Le Monde, hailing Mamdani as “the youngest mayor in New York history.”

    Mamdani referenced his age during his victory speech in Brooklyn. “The conventional wisdom would tell you that I am far from the perfect candidate,” he proclaimed. “I am young, despite my best efforts to grow older. I am Muslim. I am a Democratic socialist. And most damning of all, I refuse to apologize for any of this.”

    There has been no need to apologize to much of the world’s mainstream media. His age and his religion have been a help not a hindrance to Mamdani’s rapid ascension.

    A puff-piece in Wednesday’s Guardian was typical. It praised his youthful vigor, particularly his “savvy social-media presence” and the way in which it was “energizing younger voters… who are hungry for generational and ideological change.”

    France’s left-wing Liberation newspaper took a similar line, characterizing Mamdani as “the idol of Generation Z” and the hope for a better future in the United States.

    Curiously, these newspapers have a different take on another political idol of Generation Z, France’s Jordan Bardella.

    The 30-year-old president of Marine Le Pen’s National Rally is routinely attacked for his age and his reliance on social media. When Mamdani promotes himself and his policies to his 3 million followers on TikTok he is being “savvy.” When Bardella addresses his 2.2 million followers he’s using it as a “propaganda tool.”

    For Mamdani, his youth is a virtue but with Bardella it’s a weakness. CNN has pointed to his “short career and lack of concrete experience,” while the Guardian depicted him as “too young and inexperienced.”

    This week Bardella was forced to defend his age during a television interview, saying his youth does not “discredit” him. Yet the same broadcaster made no reference to Mamdani’s age when discussing the possibility that he was the future of the Democratic party. The fact he was a little “too left” was perceived to be his only blemish.

    France’s international broadcaster, France24, believes that the victory of Mamdani will “galvanize” the French left. No doubt. But it will also be a boost for Bardella.

    He has become the face this year of the National Rally, eclipsing the de facto leader of the party, Marine Le Pen. In March she was disqualified from political life for five years after a Paris court ruled she had misused EU funds. Le Pen has appealed her conviction and the outcome will be known next February.

    Even if she overturns the sentence, there is a growing belief in France that Le Pen won’t be her party’s candidate in the 2027 presidential election. She has two disadvantages: her economic socialism, which remains a turn off for middle-class voters, and her last name.

    There are still a sizable number of voters, particularly among the over 60s, who, while they agree with her about the dangers of mass immigration and Islamism, still can’t bring themselves to cast a ballot for a Le Pen. The anti-Semitism of her father, Jean-Marie, is etched in their memory.

    Bardella is different. He does not suffer the sins of his father and he is also more economically liberal. Over the last year he has been courting big business and deftly drawing the distinction between himself and his mentor, Madame Le Pen.

    Bardella’s only disadvantage is his age. Or at least it was until this week. But Mamdani has done the Frenchman a favor. Next time Bardella is interrogated by a hostile journalist about his callowness he can simply namecheck the inspiring mayor of New York.

    Or is it only left-wing leaders who are allowed to be young?

  • The medical emergency in the Oval Office

    The medical emergency in the Oval Office

    The buzzword in politics, in the wake of the socialist takeover of New York City, is “affordability.” That was certainly on Donald Trump’s mind today during an Oval Office announcement for cheaper GLP-1s, or, as Trump called them, “fat drugs.” Trump took brief potshots at Gavin Newsom and the Obama Presidential Library, and, of course, continued to urge pregnant women not to take Tylenol. 

    Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, when Trump called him out, said he was “not yet” on GLP-1s. “Good,” Trump said, adding “CMS administrator Mehmet Oz, he doesn’t take it” – obviously, since we can all agree Dr. Oz looks great. Trump did, however, roll call the quite large White House head of communications Steven Cheung. “He’s taking it,” Trump said.

    Duly outed, Cheung later said, less troll-like than in his usual style, “It’s important to encourage others to explore options to address concerns by speaking openly and honestly about it.” 

    HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., spoke, and so did Dr. Oz, who also touted reduced costs for fertility drugs, saying he was hoping it would lead to more “Trump babies,” a phrase that could lead to lots of frightening AI meme images. The event cut short at its midpoint during remarks from David Ricks, CEO of Eli Lilly, when an attendee fainted behind the lectern. “You OK?” Ricks asked to the person, who was obviously not OK at that moment. Dr. Oz rushed to his side. RFK Jr. rushed off stage left. A half hour or so later, the event resumed, and Trump said that the man, who did not appear to be in need of GLP-1s, was, in fact, OK.

    “You saw he went down. And he’s fine. They just sent him out,” Trump said. “He’s got doctors’ care. But he’s fine.”

    Trump sat at the Resolute Desk and took what felt like 100 questions. No one takes questions like Trump. There were some fun statements about tariffs, which Trump claims have brought $21 trillion into the federal coffers. The ongoing Supreme Court tariff case is “one of the most important cases in the history of our country,” of “the eight wars I ended, I would say five or six were ended because of tariffs,” and, of course, “If I didn’t come along, our country would be destroyed right now.”

    Then it was back to the fat drugs. A reporter asked about potential side effects. Trump isn’t a doctor, but he’s friends with Dr. Oz, Dr. Phil, and, we presume, Dr. Drew. He said what you might expect the average Sunday afternoon football viewer to say: “I’ve heard about very little side effects in respect to these drugs. It’s all positive. And that’s usually not the case. You see these crazy commercials on television where they tell you 15 different things that can go wrong. And then they tell you to buy it.”

    True enough, Mr. President. Next, the press conference came full circle to affordability. Trump would not address repeated questions about grocery prices. But a reporter, obviously quite friendly to the administration, brought up yesterday’s Wal-Mart statement that this year’s Thanksgiving dinner will cost less than last year’s. Thank you for bringing that up, said President Trump. 

    “Our Thanksgiving meal this year will cost 25 percent less than Joe Biden’s. To me, that’s better than anything there is. That’s better than a poll. You’ve got everything included. From the trimmings from the turkey. From everything. Lotta different items. That is a big factor. And I was angry last night with the Republicans. I said, you don’t talk about this stuff. I had to rely on a question from a reporter to get that out. We should be talking about it. We had the highest inflation in the history of our country under Biden. Gas prices are close to two dollars a gallon. Under them, it was four or five. When gasoline goes down and energy goes down, everything else follows. What the Democrats do is they lie. We are the ones who’ve done great on affordability. They’ve done horribly at it. They take commercials out, ‘under Democrats you have affordability.’ It’s just the opposite. Every price is down.”

    This includes, after today’s announcement, the price of GLP-1s, which many people will need after an inexpensive Thanksgiving feast. Trump closed with this less-than-gracious thought about the retiring Nancy Pelosi:  “I thought she was an evil woman who did a poor job, who cost the country a lot in damages and in reputation.” You’d expect nothing less about Pelosi from Trump, her sworn enemy. But she’s got doctors’ care, and she’s fine.