Tuesday, September 20, 2022

Beatles: Let It Back

 
During recording for the Abbey Road album (which commenced almost immediately after the "Get Back" sessions), George Martin couldn't make it to the studio one Saturday.  The Beatles were working on the songs "Oh, Darling" and "Octopus' Garden" (both of which were first heard during those "Get Back" sessions.)  Martin got engineer Jeff Jeratt to substitute.  He'd never worked with the Beatles before. 

 As Jeratt recalled for Mark Lewisohn in his The Beatles Recording Sessions 1962-1970, Martin warned him, "There will be one Beatle there, fine.  Two Beatles, great.  Three Beatles, fantastic. But the minute the four of them are there, that is when the inexplicable, charismatic thing happens, the special magic that no one has been able to explain.  It will be very friendly between you and them but you'll be aware of this inexplicable presence."

Jaratt added: "Sure enough, that's exactly the way it happened.  I've never felt it in any other circumstances, it was the special chemistry of the four of them which nobody since has ever had."

Peter Jackson's long video chronicle of the Get Back sessions in 1969, streaming on Disney Plus and now on DVD and Blu-Ray, is not only a saturation in Beatles history and process, but a unique view of a rare time, when all four Beatles were in the studio together every day for a month, something that likely hadn't happened since their early albums, if it had ever happened before at all.  The result is an engrossing, mystifying and sometimes exhilarating eight hours, which for me verges on the addictive.

After completing what's known as the White Album in October 1968 (official title: The Beatles), the Beatles decided to have themselves filmed in the recording studio to be made into a TV special.  At first they were going to do White Album songs, but then decided it would be more interesting to show them creating new songs, rehearsing them, and then performing them in a live show...somewhere.  The day after New Years in 1969, they began.

Until now, all that officially resulted from these sessions were the feature film Let It Be and the album of that title, both released in 1970.  By the time they came out, the Beatles as a band effectively no longer existed.  The movie in particular became known as the story of them breaking up.  

About a half century later, the Beatles' still-existing company called Apple, still had the original 16 mm footage of all the hours filmed that month, plus audio tapes that ran even when the cameras didn't.  Peter Jackson, director of the Lord of the Rings films, jumped at the chance to try to construct a new something or other out of that footage.  When he started watching it (he would say repeatedly to interviewers), he was astonished: the Beatles didn't look like a dour group who hated each other.  They were often affectionate, and often having fun. The sessions had tensions but also a lot of joy.  Sometimes in subtle ways, they showed the earned closeness of a band of self-selected brothers, who had made magic together for nearly a decade, and still could. Some four years later Jackson delivered Get Back, an eight hour selection for Disney to run in three segments, and eventually, for Apple to issue as three DVDs.

Apart from doing it at all, Peter Jackson earns high praise for doing two basic things.  First, he used today's technology to "restore" the visuals and the sound.  I'm guessing that in fact the visuals look even better than the original 16 mm film, although 16 can look pretty damn good.  The sound of the music probably needed less work, but the real contribution was to clean up the sound so that the conversations etc. can be heard.  

Second, Jackson structured the film chronologically, which in itself changes the impressions often created by the Let It Be movie, which was directed by the guy who filmed all those hours, Michael Lindsay-Hogg.   Let It Be has the barest sense of chronology.  It's basically a collection of scenes.  It also looks terrible.  Even when it first came out, blown up to 35 mm, it was grainy and dark.  Surviving versions are often further edited and panned-and-scanned.  The one I have on VHS looks like a series of extreme close-ups shot during a blackout.  My fading memory of seeing it a couple of times in theatres, however, supports the idea that close-ups or one and two shots predominated.  Jackson's film has a larger sense of space.  We get the full studio and the full band. 

But even as a chronology of that month and of these sessions, Jackson's film isn't complete.  Important events outside the studio aren't mentioned, both in terms of background (the Beatles finances were a mess, and Apple was going broke) and specific events.  For example, early in the month, George Harrison suddenly gets up and leaves, quitting the group.  It's a big dramatic moment, and Jackson's film does a great job of showing the other Beatles' responses.  Then a few days later, Harrison comes back, inexplicably cheerful.  Jackson's film doesn't even try to suggest why Harrison left, except to show a painful conversation with McCartney that the Let It Be film also shows part of.  (Some Beatles scholars however suggests George and John Lennon had an off-camera tiff earlier that day, which precipitated George leaving.)  But what Jackson's film doesn't mention is that the day before George quit, his wife Patti left him.  And then she returned at about the time he rejoined the group.  He seemed to remain in a very good mood from then on, very committed to the band.

Apart from leaving out external events (including alleged drug use), Jackson leaves out parts of some conversations, skipping sentences and even moving the order of statements within the same conversation.  I know this because Beatles scholars on YouTube play the original audio tapes, which became available long before Jackson's Get Back was released.   So while this is a huge improvement in understanding what actually happened in these January 1969 sessions, Jackson's film isn't quite as complete or straightforward as it might seem.

Get Back tells a story that seems to be basically accurate.  The initial idea was to make use of the otherwise empty building of the British film company, Twickenham Studio, because Apple had leased it for the month in preparation for the making of The Magic Christian feature film, that was scheduled to begin shooting there in February.  That movie starred Peter Sellars and Ringo Starr, so that was another reasons the Beatles had to finish this musical adventure in January--Ringo would be unavailable.

But the Beatles were miserable at Twickingham. They were in a huge, cold room in the London winter, showing up in the morning at a time they would normally still be asleep, and unaccustomed to making music in a studio that early. The sound in the room was awful. They had to deal with every moment being filmed, as well as still photographers roaming around them constantly.  Director Lindsay-Hogg was badgering them about where they would do the live show.  They couldn't agree.

Harrison's departure seemed to change the game.  The other three Beatles met with him and all agreed they weren't going back to Twickingham, they weren't doing a TV show but the footage could be used for a feature film (they owed their studio one anyway) and they weren't going out of the country for a live show (which is what their director wanted.)   George helped organize the equipment needed to record in the Apple headquarters basement.

The mood lightened immediately when they got there, where a a homey space was created that they all liked.  Though the film shows a disconcerting amount of jamming and fooling around, they got down to working out songs.  This is the stuff that I really like, and I suppose anyone who has been in a musical group, especially one working with original songs, will recognize the process, even if this is on a whole other level. I love artistic process movies.  I love Sting's Bring On The Night.  So even what may seem tedious to others tends to delight me.

But several songs are getting bogged down, with several of the Beatles realizing they need another player, someone to do keyboards live.  Then one day, Billy Preston just shows up to say hello--he has known them since they were all teenagers playing dubious clubs in Hamburg.  (In fact, George Harrison had been talking him up to the others, and invited him to "drop in.")

 They ask him to sit in on the song they're working on ("I've Got A Feeling"), and immediately everything starts to fall into place.    Billy Preston provides the musical spark to several songs that completes them, and gets the juices going.  One of the early highlights of the series is watching Paul McCartney working out the basics of "Get Back" from scratch. Then we see the lyrics gradually change from an anti-racist protest song (anyone remember Enoch Powell?) to the words we know.  Billy Preston's keyboards finally completes it.  He remained part of the group through the rest of the sessions.  His work on "Get Back" has been praised, but he's equally essential to "Don't Let Me Down."  

Throughout we hear each of the Beatles bringing in songs (several times, something they had written the night before), and everyone gets interested.  Most of these songs, and others they are working on, will appear (we know now) either on their next album, the incomparable Abbey Road, or, more hauntingly, on their post-Beatles solo albums.  The explorations of George Harrison's song "Something" are especially fascinating.  The musical accompaniment for once comes easily, and that great tune is there.  But Harrison has almost no lyrics to what will eventually be known as one of the greatest love songs of all time.  It sounds so heartfelt, but for months, George didn't know what "something in the way she moves" attracts me like.  

Of the songs that eventually do make it on the
Let It Be album, one of the most troublesome is "Two of Us."  It was the song Paul and George argued about at Twickingham.  For weeks the group is never satisfied with it, no matter how many times they do it--and they do it a lot.  Paul and John sing it to each other in posh London accents, Scottish accents, Bob Dylan accents, and eventually sing it without moving their lips, like two crazed ventriloquists.  But it is Paul getting tired of playing the electric bass and picking up an acoustic guitar that gets the song going, as a kind of skiffle or folk song, with Ringo's tasty drumming and George playing bass notes on his electric guitar.

Yoko Ono has been a constant presence sitting silently beside John (in Let It Be she seems ominous; in Get Back, pretty neutral. Both she and George Harrison's second wife Olivia are listed as producers for the Get Back series.)  By the third and fourth week of the sessions, the studio opens up.  Paul's girlfriend Linda Eastman (who was shown as present once at Twickingham) brings her six year old daughter Heather to the Apple studio, and Heather's interactions with John, George and Ringo as well as Paul, and her imitation of a Yoko vocal, are highlights. (Paul and Linda would marry a week before John and Yoko. Paul soon adopted Heather as his daughter.)   Patti Harrison and Ringo's wife Maureen also visit the studio, and most of them listen to a day's recordings in the control room together.  These are some of the most affecting scenes.

But the Beatles can still never agree on a live show, and until the last moment, aren't sure if they will do their now famous rooftop concert.  Jackson intercuts the entire concert (just five songs, some repeated).  He included more street reaction than did Let It Be, so Jackson has the narrative of the police officers arriving, being diverted and finally ascending to the roof, all in split screens.  The Beatles road manager finally tries to turn off George's amp, but he curtly turns it back on and they finish the song. 

 Each time I've seen these scenes I've gotten a different impression. Sometimes the street interviews were mindless distractions.  Other times they were overpowered by the energy of the music.  Once I marveled at the reaction of people on adjacent rooftops and the street.  There's no telling how well they could hear (a segment in the Beatles Anthology suggests the sound wasn't really very loud on the street), but they show little emotion.  I couldn't help thinking of the contrast with the years of screams and fainting.  On the other hand, the people complaining about their music and the police showing up could have been straight out of A Hard Day's Night.  That much didn't change.

I was surprised then by how briefly Jackson treats the final day, in which the Beatles alone in the studio record the acoustic "Two of Us" and the two McCartney piano numbers, now classics: "The Long and Winding Road" and "Let It Be."  The movie Let It Be presented full versions of both songs, but without context, it reinforced that movie's narrative of a dominating McCartney, and the others literally (in this scene) sitting at a lower level, playing supporting parts.  In context, it was just the most efficient way to do the final recordings of these two songs, at the end of an exhausting month.  However, it would have been nice to hear more of them.  ( For my money, the best cut of "Let It Be" on film is in the Beatles Anthology.)  

What about the Beatles themselves?  Paul McCartney is neither the authoritarian monster and central villain that the Let It Be movie casts him to be (though his beard and black suit don't help), but neither is he the genial and articulate statesman of interviews.  Emotionally he seems all over the place--capable of far-seeing insights and long monologues of near nonsense. He comes off as a paradox at times.  For example, who was the most actively opposed to doing the rooftop concert? And who looked like he was having the best time doing it?  McCartney, both. 

John Lennon is always the class clown, but he's also very quiet and subdued for long stretches, though when they play in the Apple basement he's right there, energetic and engaged.  There are moments when both McCartney and especially Lennon are pretty open about their fears and insecurities, past and present.  Paul is uncomfortable in his role and worried about the band's direction.  On the music itself, he worries that his classic ballads drag too much.  John is contrite for showing up late and not being at his best. (This may be the result of his reputed occasional heroin use, or he's just sick.  It's the flu season and both Paul and Ringo also complain of being ill at different times.) John is realistic about the limits of his own guitar work, though I was surprised to see that he did the guitar solos on "Get Back," and some of the jams show he had more lead guitar skills than I would have guessed.

George Harrison appears all black or all white, sour or sunny, and in Martin Scorsese's biographical film about him, that's how Ringo describes him: either saint or sinner, nothing in between.  It wouldn't be until Abbey Road and his own All Things Must Pass album (the most successful of all the immediate post-Beatles releases), that the quality of his songwriting was fully revealed, along with his unique, haunting and supple voice.  Just before the Get Back sessions, he had spent six months producing other artists, and his production of All Things Must Pass (despite what Spector did to it) is musically remarkable.  In that sense, he never really had a "solo" career.  He was the instigator of the Traveling Wilburys in the early 90s, which he formed (Olivia  Harrison said in the Scorsese film) because he missed being in a group.  He missed the Beatles. 

Ringo Starr was the backbone of the Beatles sound, and the glue that held the Beatles together. Though he's not heard saying much in this series, it's partly because he does his job so well.  A lot of Beatles songs sound simple until you get into their structure.  For instance, George comes in with a song, "I, Me, Mine," best known now for its eloquent lyrics, that he was inspired to write by seeing a grand waltz performed on a TV movie.  Most of the song is in waltz time (John and Yoko actually waltz to it), though it breaks into a four-four rocker, and back again.  Other songs are replete with even more subtle complications, and Ringo has to engineer these time-jumps seamlessly. 

Even so, Ringo has a nice scene doing a comic take to the delight of Heather McCartney, and also when he brings in the basic idea for "Octopus' Garden"--  George (the other non-Lennon-McCartney songwriter) immediately starts working with him to extend it, soon charming everyone and interesting the other Beatles in developing it.

Transcending all other impressions of this series is this magic opportunity to spend this much time with these four extraordinary people, all of them still in their twenties, as this extraordinary group.  Though this experiment was artificial in that it wasn't how the Beatles made their records anymore, it did bring them together every day over an extended period for the last time.  In the decade to come, as they went their separate ways (though different combinations of them collaborated), they all had periods of depression or despondency, and they all at times had serious drug and/or alcohol problems; two marriages ended, and they all endured tragedies.  John Lennon was weeks past his 40th birthday when he was shot dead.  These hours in the studio, during which they often revisited their past music as well as shaping new songs, seem like a time out of time.

With the benefit of hindsight, we do see suggestions of what would soon break up the band.  We also see the Beatles' luck start to change.  In the beginning they happened to find the right manager, the right producer, and then the right film director to help them blossom.  But this film makes a joke of their association with "Magic Alex," the supposed electronics genius they hired who is exposed as a total and expensive charlatan.  Not so funny is reference to John Lennon meeting Allen Klein, and his glowing account of Klein's knowledge and business acumen.  Eventually, Lennon convinced George and Ringo to make Klein (then managing the Rolling Stones) the group's manager.  Paul saw through Klein, and the resulting conflict was the proximate cause for the Beatles to break up.  Klein did get them more money, but his nefarious schemes eventually turned John and especially George against him.  They all dumped him, and he became an active nemesis for awhile, until more money changed hands.  

Also at about this time, John and George brought legendary producer Phil Spector into their efforts, and Spector's production of the long delayed Let It Be album did not go over well.  Eventually, McCartney backed a re-release that stripped it of Spector's effects, for the album Let It Be Naked

Yet, just weeks after the rooftop concert, the Beatles began recording again, this time with their producer of all previous records, George Martin, and did so at their EMI studios on Abbey Road, for their last, transcendent album.  And in the end...  

Monday, September 12, 2022

Says I To Myself, or Maybe the Universe

 

When commentators were falling over each other trying to illustrate what a long time Queen Elizabeth II had been queen (xx number of Prime Ministers and Presidents, etc.), they hit home with this statistic: they said that only 10% of the world's current population had been alive when Elizabeth was crowned Queen.

Well, that was June 1953, I was alive and a few weeks shy of my 7th birthday.  I have a vague recollection of the royal procession televised in black and white, but that's likely from seeing it later.  But I could have seen it.  I'd certainly seen Hopalong Cassidy and Captain Video.  (I'd also pondered the mystery of Bishop Sheen's guardian angel erasing his blackboard, just out of sight of the camera on his Tuesday night show.)  

When I heard this 10% statistic (assuming it is accurate), I was knocked back a bit. While I didn't realize my age group is that much of a minority (my generation was pretty large), it's not news that I'm not swimming in the Zeitgeist the way I once did.  Not that I even want to.

Since my retirement I've pursued the second look-- examination of some worlds of my past, but from perspectives made possible by the passage of time.  That's probably not surprising to anyone who has been reading this blog since 2016.  It's quite a lot of what I've been writing about.

Writing about a past of limited interest to that 90%, and doing so on an outmoded medium on the Internet, is not a recipe for a readership of clamoring millions.  Thanks also to Blogger ending support for the email notification system of new posts, my already small officially measured readership has diminished further.  I can't say I'm happy about mostly talking to myself, but I'm not about to change what I'm doing.

  Not everybody gets this chance--to look back, to reexamine, to discover aspects of the past I didn't know or understand, to explore the textures of the past in the present, to go deeper, to connect up those scattered memories into contexts.  Sometimes to experience the shiver of recognition, as when I recently flipped through an old history textbook I'd used in probably eighth grade, as seeing certain illustrations prompted an eerie echo of staring at them in 1958.  It's not all bliss--some memories revived do haunt the nights.  But I'm still not going to miss this opportunity.  I don't apologize to anyone for this, and I expect to keep doing it. 

 Maybe I'll find a better platform to write about it, but so far it hasn't bothered me enough to spend the time looking for one.  I spent way too much time in my life writing fruitless proposals or begging for assignments, trying to please editors and agents.  I know I'm overcompensating, but to me the Internet blog means I write and I publish it, no proposals to be approved, no publication situations or egos to deal with.  No market research.  No submitting manuscripts and waiting.  So nobody looking over my shoulder.  I just write it (hard enough, thank you) and publish it. In terms of access, my potential readership is the entire world, for as long as this thing is connected to the servers.  There's nothing stopping them but themselves.

Saturday, July 16, 2022

Coincidentally Yours


 Within our little lives, there are mysteries.  Why things happen can have an obvious causality, or at least a logic.  Or the causality can elude us.  Our usual ways of thinking don't quite work.

I'm a big fan of coincidences (and coincidentally, someone in college nicknamed me Big Coincidence, playing off the syllables in my name.)  I've always maintained that as the kind of writer I was professionally, serendipity--useful coincidence--was my most valuable research tool.  So I think about these things, and notice them.

 I have a few recent examples to ponder.  One of them involves George Orwell.  For a forgotten reason--if there was a reason--I had a sudden hankering to read an Orwell essay, and I knew I had a book of Orwell essays.  But when I looked in the Orwell section on one of my bookshelves, it wasn't there.  I kept looking everywhere I could think of it might be but could not find it.  And as I browsed I would wander back to the shelf where other Orwell books resided.  One title I did have was Coming Up for Air.  I realized that I'd never read it and knew nothing about it.

Shortly thereafter, perhaps that same day, I was browsing the latest additions to the Arts and Letters Daily, an online selection of current articles with links, just to see what was new that might interest me.  Near the top was an article on Orwell.  The Daily, like a lot of Internet sites now, is not as useful as it once was, since many of the publications it links to keep their articles behind a pay wall or otherwise restrict them.  But I found I could read this one, and it dealt largely with Orwell's early and neglected novel, Coming Up For Air.

This is an authentic coincidence, seemingly made more strange because the novel is so obscure.  It is a personal coincidence--that is, a coincidence only to me.  It's difficult to judge the extent of the coincidence: that is, just how unlikely it is, with the strong implication that the less likely, the more meaningful.  Another such coincidence happened to me since.  I had finished reading a contemporary novel that I found admirable, until the end jolted me with a troubling and seemingly artificial but terrible fate to an endearing character.  I felt betrayed, and especially given my age and the times, this is not something I want to encounter in my reading anymore.  

So I sought out a story to clear my emotions--the kind much less likely to offer such a gut punch.  I got down my volume of Sherlock Holmes stories, and happened on one I'd never read before, called "The Adventure of the Yellow Face."  Watson starts off noting that most of his stories are about Holmes' triumphs of deduction, but he's also been wrong.  In this case his theory is completely wrong.  In the end it is revealed that a wife was trying to conceal something from her husband that turned out to be a child from a former marriage--a marriage to a black man that resulted in a black child.  Much to her astonishment, her husband immediately accepts the child.  It is a very short and singular Holmes story that I've never seen dramatized (and I've seen pretty much all) or heard referred to, or knew anything about.

The next evening I was looking at a YouTube video interview of Nicholas Meyer, writer and director of several Star Trek projects, the proximate reason for checking out the video, though I also liked hearing him talk, as he is an intelligent talker.  He also has written several Sherlock Holmes novels (I knew of only his first, and didn't consciously remember it), and this interview seemed to be on the occasion of his latest.  He was commenting on instances of casual stereotyping of Jews and non-white races in the Conan Doyle Holmes stories, typical of his times.  But there was an exception he said, a little story called "The Yellow Face."

That I picked out a video from everything on YouTube that mentioned the obscure story I'd read the night before is certainly a coincidence.  But coincidence, like serendipity, is about attention.  Had I really never heard of that story before?  Perhaps I had, but it meant nothing to me at the time.  It might not have meant much to me this time, had I not just read it. (I also recall a shiver when I anticipated Meyer was going to mention it just before he did.)  

Serendipity, at least as a research technique, is also like that: it's about attention.  Perhaps it is remarkable that a book pertinent to research on my latest project is sitting there on a sale table in front of the Harvard Bookstore--a book (in the case I'm thinking of, a kind of anthology) I didn't know existed, with authors I did not know.  But had I not been paying attention to books that could be relevant to my research, it might have escaped my notice entirely.  It was the convergence of my interest and attention, and the presence of the book (and then later, how useful it became--I contacted several of its authors), that made it serendipitous.  It may also be akin to Jung's theory of synchronicity, summarized in a song by Sting as: "if you act as you think/the missing link/synchronicity."

But that doesn't explain everything about coincidence or related phenomena. And my Orwell story isn't over. 

Eventually I concluded that my book of Orwell essays had been among the books I sold in Pittsburgh before I trekked to California.  But since I had became so obsessed with the idea of reading Orwell essays, I went on Amazon to buy a collection.  I paused over a definitive and expensive collection, but after more research I honed in on what seemed to be a more than adequate selection in a fairly affordable volume.  I chose it for my shopping cart and was about to complete the purchase when I just stopped, for no particular reason except that I didn't want to complete it at that moment.

Within the next few days my eyes strayed from my computer to the bookshelves on my right--and there it was.  Not only was it my book of Orwell essays, it was an earlier edition of precisely the selection I was going to buy. 

So what do we call this?  An intuition of some kind in one part of my brain telling my fingers not to press the purchase button?  Or a simple coincidence?  I'd certainly made that particular error before--of buying a new copy of a book I couldn't find, and then finding the copy I already had. Had that subconsciously influenced my hesitation to not risk doing it again, at least not yet? Or should we just call it luck?


The final odd event seems to be in a class by itself.  One evening at dinner my partner Margaret told me about a strange dream she'd had.  All she remembered was an image: of brightly colored bowls of different sizes, nested in one another.  She remembered this image because she had no associations for these bowls--they weren't from her childhood or had she ever had them herself.

But as soon as she said it, a memory was awakened in me.  Even though I'd recently written about the home of my childhood and its contents in the 1950s, including our Fiestaware and 1950s aluminum tumblers, I had completely forgotten the bowls of various sizes, each a single bright primary color (brighter in memory than these contemporary photos), that my mother used in our kitchen in the 1950s, with at least some of them in use for decades more. As soon as Margaret said the words, I saw them, I remembered them right down to which size bowl was which color.  That night, I looked them up on the Internet, and sure enough, there were photos of these early Pyrex bowls, sets of which are now collectors items.

So Margaret had a dream, not of her childhood, but of mine.  I wonder what to call that? 

Tuesday, May 24, 2022

TV and Me: Disney (Part 3) Tomorrowland and Other Adventures

     
TV and I grew up together.  This is our story.  Ninth in a series.


From its first episode in the fall of 1954, the Disneyland TV hour began with a review of the four "lands" before a story from one of them would then begin.  First that season there was Fantasyland, then Adventureland. They alternated for awhile. By December and the eighth episode, there was Frontierland, and so Davy Crockett was in that mix.  But for weeks and months and-- it seemed like-- years, I waited and waited for the one I most wanted: Tomorrowland.

The waiting was so excruciating for my eight year old self, that even now I am surprised to see that the first Tomorrowland episode wasn't years later, but towards the end of that first season: Episode 20, on March 9, 1955.  But it was worth the wait.  It was called "Man in Space."

Consider that date: early 1955.  The first rocket mission to space, the launch of the Soviet satellite Sputnik that shocked America, didn't happen until the fall of 1957, nearly three years later.  The U.S., which had planned to launch a satellite during the International Geophysical Year of 1957, didn't accomplish this feat until 1958.  The Soviet Union launched the first human into Earth orbit in 1961; later that year, the U.S. sent its first man into space in a sub-orbital flight.  The first American to attain orbit around the Earth was in 1962. The first American mission that landed the first humans on the moon was in 1969.

Well into the 1950s, including that year of 1955, Americans generally just did not take space flight seriously. Though there were development programs ongoing, the predominant American attitude was that space travel was a nutty idea, a juvenile fantasy of no practical value, even if possible. That was also the belief of many in government, and many if not most scientists.  Space travel was science fiction.

But what is accomplished must first be imagined, as William Blake suggested. According to a 2014 book called Marketing the Moon: The Selling of the Apollo Lunar Program by David Meerman Scott and Richard Jerek, science fiction was in fact the origin of what became reality. 
  
This book quotes astronomical artist Ron Miller: "Astronautics is unique among all the sciences because it owes its origins to an art form.  Long before engineers and scientists took the possibility of spaceflight seriously, virtually all of its aspects were explored first in art and literature..." 

"No one had considered the actual technological problems of space flight until Jules Verne," Miller asserted.  Thanks mostly to weapons of war in the 20th century, scientists and engineers became deeply interested in such technological problems.  But the goal of manned space flight for the purpose of exploration was still for dreamers.

This book singles out some of the ways that the public was prepared for space even before the reality began in 1957 with the launch of Sputnik I.  Science fiction, including the movies like Forbidden Planet, and those Saturday morning TV shows in the early 1950s that as a space-happy kid I remember vividly-- Space Patrol,Tom Corbett, Space Cadet; Rocky Jones, Space Ranger--and even earlier, Captain Video.
But the authors emphasize the speculations and artistic rendering in the popular press in the 1950s (notably Collier's Magazine) and particularly the three programs produced by Walt Disney for the Disneyland anthology, beginning with "Man in Space."  They made humans in space dramatic and real.

Walt Disney took space travel seriously, and he was personally involved in the research for these television programs.  The company had a bit of experience in this kind of program, having produced "Victory Through Air Power," a 1942 film based on a book advocating a large role for air power in the Second World War, said to have influenced Winston Churchill, and through him, FDR.  But these first Tomorrowland programs were ahead of their time.  They discussed details of rocketry, space and space travel that most Americans didn't know, let alone children in the audience.

"Man in Space" was first of the series.  The second, "Man on the Moon" was also broadcast before even a human-made satellite reached space. (And even though "man" was used in its general sense as "human," it pretty much was just men in space.  Though the Russians sent the first woman into orbit in 1963, none of the US programs before the shuttle had women astronauts.) Only the third program in the series, "Mars and Beyond," was broadcast after Sputnik, by about two months. 

These were first seen in black and white, but shot in color.  Color illustrations were lifted for books and magazine articles derived from the show.

"Man in Space" is introduced by Walt Disney, who refers to space as "the new frontier" (JFK's campaign slogan in 1960 became The New Frontier.)  The bulk of the program is a history of rocketry and animated illustrations of possible perils of humans in space, introducing the concept of weightlessness.  Rocketry pioneer Willy Ley is among those who explain various concepts.

Some of the rocketry history sacrifices accuracy for the sake of humor, but explanations of how rockets work and what might happen in space were new to most of the audience (and helped govern depictions of space trips in subsequent fiction films.)  I remember in particular that this is where I learned Newton's third law of motion, which as this film put it means "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."  It's still just about all the physics I know.

The history of rocketry leads up to the V-2, the last German rocket built in World War II.  Several blast-offs of this handsome rocket are shown, probably launches of some of the 75 V-2s the US captured and brought back after the war to essentially create the US rocket program.  Many launches of a dazzling array of differently designed rockets follow.

Not once however is it mentioned that the V-2 was used to rain terror and destruction down on England.  V-2 meant "Vengeance Weapon 2" in retaliation for the Allied bombing of Berlin and other population centers.  Over 3,000 were launched against Allied targets, mostly London, killing some 9,000 people.  Some 12,000 people died in forced labor camps making these rockets.

The London Blitz at first consisted of attack by German bombers, and then the V-1 rockets.  Londoners learned to listen for the V-1 and for the silence after the motors cut out--if it sounded close, then the bomb was apt to fall nearby.  The V-2 however was supersonic--the bomb arrived before the sound was heard, making it even more of a terror weapon.  In Thomas Pynchon's famous novel Gravity's Rainbow set in London during the V-2 bombing, one of the characters seems to have precognition of where the bombs will land.

The reason for the Disney film's silence on the uses of the V-2 was simple: Wernher von Braun was one of the chief German scientists who designed the V-2 but by 1955 he was working for the US government on its military rocket programs.  And about a half hour into the 49 minutes of this show, he appeared on camera to explain his design for the rocket that would take Americans into space.

Then comes the animated first launch of man into space.  The style is hyper-realistic, with a dramatic music score.  It's only about ten minutes but for me it was unforgettable. (The illustration at the top is from this segment.)

 In broad outlines, it does predict what the launches were like that I later watched avidly on TV, from the first Explorer satellite launch through Mercury and Apollo manned launches.  But a lot of very big details were off.  Von Braun was way too ambitious--he has a four stage rocket topped by a winged aircraft to return the 6-man crew to this "isolated atoll in the Pacific."  The first Russian and US spaceflights were three stages and had crews of one.  US Gemini had two, and Apollo three. The Disney animation also made it a night launch, which was more dramatic, but there wasn't a US night launch until deep into the Apollo program.

Probably the funniest detail for those who watched the real launches is that the crew on the Disney program wasn't taken to the rocket until 20 minutes before launch.  Watching the real launches I recall those poor astronauts sitting strapped-in for hour after hour, through the long countdowns, through launch holds and scrubbed missions.

"Man in Space" was directed by Disney animator Ward Kimball, who also appeared as a kind of host (as he would at times in the following two programs.)  The voice-over narrator is Dick Tufeld, familiar from lots of Disney productions but also as the voice of the robot in Lost in Space (Danger Will Robinson!) on TV in the 60s (and later reprised on The Simpsons.)

"Man in the Moon" was first broadcast midway through the second season on December 28, 1955.  It starts with animation illustrating the human conception of the moon throughout history, narrated (as is the rest of the film) by Hans Conreid, a famous face as well as voice of the 50s and 60s, frequently in Disney productions.

From a fanciful history of stories the program moves onto the science.  It's unfortunately noticeable now how casually Walt Disney himself mentions that the universe is at least 4 billion years old.  A mention like that (though with a larger number) in the 2014 version of the Cosmos series was loudly attacked by fundamentalists, but in 1955 this caused no controversy.  In a program built on science, it was perfectly natural.

The basic astral mechanics and the then-current knowledge about the solar system is well told with animation of various kinds, though details like the number of moons of the outer planets are now far out of date.

Then von Braun appears again to talk about the process of a human voyage to the moon.  Again he's thinking very big, ultimately about a craft that carries ten.  But a major part of this process is the construction of a space station, as an embarkation point for the huge moon-bound craft.  The space station itself is immense--much larger than today's International Space Station.  And it is in the now classic shape of the wheel.

The circular space station with a hub in the center and spokes to the sides was already becoming a space travel icon, in science fiction novels like Arthur C. Clarke's Islands in the Sky, published in 1952 as part of the Winston series of juvenile s/f novels, or in films and TV shows like Rocky Jones, Space Ranger (1954), culminating in Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968.)

It's not surprising that von Braun would gravitate towards the space wheel, for according to Sam Moskowitz's s/f history Explorers of the Infinite, its first appearance was in a novel by German writer Kurd Lasswitz in 1897, which was republished many times well into the 1940s at least.  Several aspects of von Braun's design are descendants of concepts published by German scientist Hermann Oberth in 1923. An Austrian writer named Noordung and two German scientists named von Pirquet and Gail pioneered other ideas adapted into this design, including how the crew would live on the space station, all decades earlier. It's likely von Braun would have been aware of all of these as he worked on the German rocket program. To these concepts Von Braun added an atomic power plant.

The dramatization of the actual voyage from the station to the moon is the most elaborate of the series.  It involves animation but also models, and live actors and sets.  The models and sets are particularly interesting--the spacecraft are all white, while the interiors favor primary colors.  It's all surprisingly 1960s Trek-like.

The technology however is dated to the point of nostalgia.  The on-board computer for instance gives a new meaning to "dial-up."  There's a little drama aboard when a micro-meteor hits a fuel line and a space walk is necessary.  The craft doesn't attempt to land (as the first Apollo didn't) but does a single orbit.  There's a little s/f involved when it crosses the dark side of the moon and launches flares to reveal unusual surface features at right angles, perhaps suggesting built structures, but nothing is said about it and the moment passes.

Mars and Beyond was first broadcast on December 4, 1957.  It's narrated by Paul Frees, an actor who did a lot of voice-over work for many decades (he was everybody from the unseen millionaire on The Millionaire to Boris Badenov on Rocky and Bullwinkle.)  His most prominent s/f appearance was in the 1953 George Pal version of  The War of the Worlds: he was the first of the narrators, and played a role as a radio announcer.  As this program begins he seems to be trying to sound like Orson Welles, but by the end he's using the portentous voice he employed when talking about Mars in The War of the Worlds.

This show begins with animation about human conceptions of the nature of the stars and the cosmos and life on other planets.  The concepts are often so weird that the animation gets wildly creative.  At times it seems very Cubist, as if Picasso is the strangest thing the animators could think of.  There are also suggestions of such later animations as Yellow Submarine.

To suggest the variety of possibilities for life on other planets, the show tells the story of Earth's own history, from carbon atoms to proteins to organic compounds in the primordial sea.  "Now with time as the main ingredient the evolution of life is inevitable."  Visually arresting enough for children, the script is surprisingly sophisticated and eloquent.  While the accompanying images sometimes go off on playful tangents, the narration is carefully scientific.  Again, it's sad to compare what was uncontroversial for a family audience in 1957 compared to the regressiveness of today.

The program's attention finally turns to Mars, and the question of whether humans could exist there--a question, the narration states, that arises because of human overpopulation and depletion of resources on Earth.  This is 1957!  (Which is getting close to the time that the correlation between fossil fuel burning, higher CO2 in the atmosphere and the warming of the global temperature is being determined.)

There's also the question of what kind of life could exist on Mars.  Some of the forms discussed are silicon based lifeforms, and creatures that eat through rock.   Years later, similar creatures would appear in one of Star Trek's best known stories.

There's talk of fuels and drives for the Mars spaceship. Someone with a firmer grasp of propulsion will have to check me but I think one they describe is the equivalent of the ion drive that also appears in science fiction.  In any case, the von Braun design is atomic-powered.  It has a big circular dish at the top and a kind of airplane-looking landing craft underneath.  

This is a much briefer depiction of a trip of a six ship convoy, beginning at the space station (which we've seen in animation being built) and ending with speculation as to what the craft will find on the surface (though a planet totally devoid of life isn't among the speculated possibilities).

  The "beyond" part is briefer still, as a flying saucer--apparently of advanced electro-magnetic drive to neutralize gravity--zips off towards the infinite, looking like the opening of Forbidden Planet (or perhaps the end of The Day the Earth Stood Still) with small saucers disappearing into the belly of a much larger mothership (This Island Earth to Close Encounters of the Third Kind.)

This is the spaciest of the series, with imagery that suggests some of the wilder parts of 2001 a decade later (which maybe why they didn't surprise me?)  It also has the most eloquent script.  Its description of the possible lifeforms on Mars is the most imaginative I've ever seen illustrated.  Think of what they could have done with the tools of today.

The function of this series at the time was to excite the imagination while showing through scientific explanation that these age-old dreams of exploring outer space, the moon and Mars were within the realm of possibility in the near future.  And as it turned out, with some modifications, some of them were.

Yet something about these programs apparently transcended their time, for they continued to play fairly often on the Disney Channel into the 21st century, long after most of their speculations became obsolete.  I was certainly thrilled by them when they first appeared.  Then I got to see the real thing--the first years of the U.S. space program, broadcast live on the commercial networks.

Adventureland

 Many of the early episodes of the Disneyland series were under the heading of Adventureland: “Nature’s own realm.”  Once again, Disney made liberal use of prior motion picture footage.  Along with his first forays into scripted live action in his company’s lean years after World War II, Disney experimented with a series of seven half-hour “True-Life Adventures” nature films, beginning in 1948.  He later ran these on Disneyland, accompanied by newer (and not always related) material.

 The first of these (“Seal Island”) comprised half of the third episode of Disneyland in 1954.  The 1950 “Beaver Valley” was half of episode 10, and 1951’s “Nature’s Half Acre” was half of episode 16 in February 1955.  The last short feature in 1953, on the Everglades, was seen in the second episode of the second season.

 After that, between 1953 and 1960, Disney made seven full-length nature films, and pieces of them appeared in the TV anthology—in later years, before they were released to theatres.

 On the plus side, Disney pioneered the use of time-lapse photography, which could show the entire lifecycle of plants or insects, and slow motion photography, which isolated delicate moments in the flight of bees and hummingbirds, for instance.

 But the Disney business was narrative, and the emphasis was often on conflict. Predators and prey, or male animals clashing in the mating season, had the action to keep viewers watching.  While it’s true that a lot of activity in the wild is along the theme of eating and being eaten, emphasis on predator/prey scenes also unfortunately supported the standard metaphor of nature as constant warfare, “survival of the fittest” in the grossest sense.  The more subtle elements of survival, such as cooperation, learning, sharing and negotiation, aren't fast enough to be considered watchable, although these films sometimes did patch together narratives out of less violent behaviors. Also unfortunately, like other nature films of the time, events were sometimes staged, using trained animals in artificial circumstances. 

I grew up climbing trees.  We weren't out in the country, but there was plenty of life around us--especially small creatures, from rabbits and squirrels on down. So even though these were far from my favorite episodes, I was sometimes fascinated, for the camera captured a lot of what I could not otherwise witness.  I don't recall specifics, but these probably contributed to my later interest in ecology.  For me, futuristic technology and space travel, and the importance of environment and the agency of all life on earth, were not contradictory interests or concerns. Tomorrowland and Adventureland coexisted, along with history (Frontierland) and Fantasyland. In these early days for me, they were all part of the world, as they remain. Perhaps in at least a partial way I have the Disneyland anthology to thank for that point of view.

  Disney, TV and Reading

 The rise of television in the lives of my Baby Boomer generation was accompanied by outcries from parental and religious groups, and decried by educators.  Congressional hearings were held on violence in programs with young audiences, and supposed vision experts were seriously concerned about the fate of our eyes.  Educators worried about addictive and mindless content seducing us from our homework, and were afraid the constant parade of imagery was ruining our capacity to read.

 They weren’t entirely wrong about some of that, especially about reading.  It would be another decade before Marshall McLuhan became famous for detailing how different television is from print. 

 Did TV images themselves discourage reading?  Probably to some extent. It was easier to be stimulated--to get revved up--by TV, regardless of content.  We read the moving images of TV at a faster rhythm that made slowing down to read words more difficult.  The time spent watching TV that previous generations may have spent reading was probably also a potent factor, as well as TV’s seductiveness.

 The Internet is known for slicing and dicing the contemporary attention span, but long before the first emoji there was television, charged with decimating our concentration.  I’ve always maintained that attention spans were shortened then, not so much by anything inherent in television, but by the bright distractions of television commercials.   Even in the 1950s, when there were fewer commercials and less of a TV hour devoted to them, and they were not so abruptly thrown in, they still distracted and disrupted attention to the narrative, with cumulative effects.

 Attention spans in childhood are already limited, however.  Perhaps I was slow on the uptake, but even though I was reading books from the library by the time I was 10, I was still having trouble stretching my attention through a long novel in high school.  There were of course books I couldn’t stop reading.  But some books stimulated me so much I couldn’t keep reading them, while others made me sleepy, or I just got lost, even if I was interested.

 Television was not alone in making books sometimes seem like a foreign country: exotic and beckoning perhaps, but confusing, hard to understand, and intimidating. So sometimes an entry point, or perhaps a bridge, was needed to get into the book and its reality. 

 Written stories, oral tales, are themselves bridges to many of Disney’s best-known animations.  But sometimes the Disney version encourages going back across that bridge to the source. 

For example, I knew the basic story of Alice in Wonderland before seeing the Disney version, though I was too young to read the Lewis Carroll book at that time.  Having some confidence from knowing the Disney version, I must have read it a few years later —all I can remember is coming to the end of it and the thrill of seeing that there was yet another Alice story to read, Through the Looking Glass.

 As I mentioned in the post previous to this one in this series, I probably had an interest in the American Revolution from reading about it, before I saw Disney’s Johnny Tremain.  But that story inspired further reading, probably including a stab at the source novel, Johnny Tremain by Esther Forbes, from the public library.  I don’t specifically recall reading it, though, and a more recent reading suggests why: the novel involves a much more complicated story, that goes on past the events in the movie.  I may not have had the attention span for all of it yet. 

Sometimes it took awhile before I was ready to walk over the bridge.  From Disney’s 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, I knew the name of Jules Verne, and the success of that movie led to others made from Verne stories that I saw at Saturday matinees.  Actually reading Verne required yet another bridge: the Classics Illustrated comic books.  The first one I read was I believe the first one ever, the cover of which I remember vividly: it was From the Earth to the Moon. (It looks like a 1950s rocketship but it's actually more of a bullet.)

 The only Disney product I definitely remember leading directly to reading was not from the Disneyland anthology but another series.  I was a bit too old for the Mickey Mouse Club, but my younger sister Kathy watched it every afternoon, so I might see some of it in passing on the living room TV, still the only one in the house.  One day I noticed a filmed story beginning within the Mickey Mouse Club show, about two boy detectives, Frank and Joe Hardy.   

The story, called “The Mystery of the Applegate Treasure,” was based on the first novel in the Hardy Boys series, The Tower Treasure (though it also borrowed elements from #36: The Secret of Pirate Hill.)  The serial, starring Tim Considine and Tommy Kirk (both appeared in many other Disney stories) was broadcast in October 1956, every day for 19 episodes of fifteen minutes each. I was completely smitten.

 I asked my sister to alert me if there was another Hardy Boys story (there was and she did: “The Mystery of Ghost Farm” was broadcast in 12 segments the following year. It begins with the beginning of #2 of the novels, The House on the Cliffs, but quickly diverges.)

 Meanwhile, I discovered the Hardy Boys series of books, and hit the public library for whatever was available at the moment, for they had other readers.  These were the originals, the series that ran from 1927 into the 1950s, before the first 38 were revised (and many ruined) in 1959.  As library books they were without the dust jackets but with the brown letters on light brown covers.  I wrote about them in detail in my “History of My Reading” series.

  This bridge relationship of TV shows to books continued for the rest of my life so far.  Just a few years ago, when I undertook to read Charles Dickens Bleak House—all 875 paperback pages—I did so after having seen the 2005 BBC miniseries, and I borrowed the DVDs from the university library to watch after I’d read the appropriate chapters, to make sure I had the characters and action straight in my mind. 

 The theme of such bridges will recur in this series, which now moves on beyond shows for children to other 1950s TV forms, beginning with the variety show.