Month: April 2005


  • Ting-Li Wang/The New York Times

    Francesca Keeler, 5, seemed to have Central Park’s Great Lawn to herself Tuesday.

    Keeping Great Crowds Off Central Park’s Great Lawn
    By TIMOTHY WILLIAMS

    The city’s Parks Department wants to limit gatherings on the Great Lawn in Central Park to 50,000 people, a move that would end an era in which hundreds of thousands of people turned to the park as a place to protest, or to see the pope, Pavarotti and Simon and Garfunkel, officials said yesterday.

    The proposal, which has not been widely disseminated and requires no other approval but the department’s, would also cap the number of events on the Great Lawn to six each year, with four of those reserved for the annual performances of the Metropolitan Opera and the New York Philharmonic. Parks officials say those musical programs draw “passive” audiences who go easy on the lawn’s Kentucky bluegrass.

    The other two events would have to be held during a four-week period in August and September.

    The Parks Department said the rules would simply formalize what has been its informal policy since 1997, when the city spent $18.2 million to restore the 13-acre Great Lawn, which for years had been more dust bowl than lawn.

    But Adrian Benepe, the parks commissioner, acknowledged that he was led to formalize the rules by the city’s court battle last summer with an antiwar group that sought to use the lawn for a rally that was expected to draw as many as 250,000 people.

    “You have two choices,” Mr. Benepe said. “You can have unlimited, large-scale events, or you can have nice grass, but you can’t have both.

    “It was unlimited use that destroyed the park in the old days, so if you want the city’s backyard to be in good shape, you have got to put limitations on its use,” the commissioner said.

    Opponents of the policy, however, say something is lost if Luciano Pavarotti cannot sing before a half-million people in the park as he did in 1993, or the pope can no longer celebrate Mass for 125,000, as John Paul II did in 1995.

    “We’ve got to make sure, that No. 1, the limits are for the greater good and not meant to deter certain groups,” said Councilwoman Helen Foster, chairwoman of the City Council’s Parks and Recreation Committee. “We’ve got to make sure that we are not limiting what we expose New York City residents to.”

    The Parks Department published its proposed new rules on April 18 in The City Record, a daily publication in which city agencies announce public hearings. The policy change would not require the approval of the Council, although the department has scheduled a public hearing on the issue for May 20 at the Chelsea Recreation Center.

    Currently, the Parks Department does not expressly limit the number of people allowed on the Great Lawn for gatherings, and there are no limits on the number of events held there. Permission to assemble is granted case by case when groups apply for permits. Any group with more than 20 people requires a permit.

    The Great Lawn is the only spot in the park where gatherings of more than 50,000 people have been permitted in recent years. A concert by the Philharmonic or an opera performance draws a maximum of about 50,000, representatives from the organizations said; the last big event on the lawn, a 2003 concert by the Dave Matthews Band, drew 80,000.

    The new policy would limit events on the lawn to a four-week period from the third week of August through the second week of September, with the exception of the opera and Philharmonic performances, which are held annually in June and July. Mr. Benepe said the monthlong window for new events was intended to give the grass a chance to recover between big gatherings.

    A spokesman for United for Peace and Justice, which lost its fight with the city last August to hold a huge antiwar rally on the Great Lawn during the Republican National Convention, said the proposed rules were aimed squarely at preventing groups like his from holding large political demonstrations in the park.

    “This would set in stone their institutional attitude about protests,” said the spokesman, Bill Dobbs. “In Manhattan, nearly every square foot is covered with buildings, so the park is the town common, where people have assembled for generations. Now the Bloomberg administration is seeking to maintain it as a lawn museum.”

    The group has received a permit for a May 1 rally at the Heckscher Ballfields in the park to support global nuclear disarmament and end the war in Iraq. Mr. Dobbs said that as many as 50,000 people were expected to attend the protest. The fields are scheduled to be restored this fall, and after that large gatherings there would be prohibited, parks officials said.

    Mr. Dobbs said it was particularly unfair that so many of the large-scale events on the Great Lawn would be opera and Philharmonic performances. “To give the symphony and opera four of the six – the bulk of them – shows the class of people whose interests are being protected,” he said.

    But the city makes distinctions between what it calls passive users (those who sit, drink wine and listen) and active users (those who dance, march or simply stand on the park’s delicate grass).

    Mr. Benepe said that while classical-music lovers have caused almost no harm to the Great Lawn over the years, the Dave Matthews concert caused $120,000 worth of damage to the grass.

    “The day of the mega-event is over in Central Park,” said Mr. Benepe, who added that the Matthews concert had taught him a lesson.

    In the park yesterday, the proposed changes received a mixed reaction.

    Morgan Storms, 26, a fifth grade teacher, said the rules did not make much sense.

    “It seems awfully silly to base a law like that on grass that will grow back,” said Ms. Storms. “It’s like cutting your hair. It grows back, right?”

    But Gavin Keeler, 42, a legal assistant playing soccer with his two young daughters, remembered the bad old days, when a walk across the Great Lawn sometimes meant a face full of dust.

    “If it’s a question between six events a year that are not going to harm it, and a couple of free-for-alls that are going to harm it, I’ll take the limits,” he said.

    Matthew Sweeney contributed reporting for this article.

    Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | RSS | Help | Back to Top


  • André Villers/Karl Kemp Antiques

    André Villers’s photograph of “Pablo Picasso with Cowboy Hat and Revolver.” The gun Picasso is brandishing was said to be from Gary Cooper.

    PHOTOGRAPHY REVIEW
    A Quixotic Man of 1,000 Poses, Each From His Own Script
    By KEN JOHNSON

    In 1953, a 23-year-old photographer named André Villers sought out Pablo Picasso in hopes of adding his image to a portfolio of portraits of modern artists that he was assembling. Picasso, who could be unkind to people who found their way into his orbit, took a shine to Mr. Villers, and the result was a series of intimate black-and-white portraits made during the 1950′s and 60′s, some of which are now on view at Karl Kemp Antiques in Manhattan.

    Picasso was, of course, an uncannily photogenic man, and he played to the camera like a veteran character actor. In Mr. Villers’s pictures, he adopts a remarkable variety of personas.

    We see him working in the studio with visionary concentration and clowning around bare-chested in a bowler hat and a fake beard. Elsewhere he seems a kindly patriarch posing with his young children Claude and Paloma. And then he is like a child himself, in a cowboy hat marveling over a pistol said to have been given him by Gary Cooper. Standing shirtless next to the handsome young Mr. Villers for a double portrait in a mirror, he wears a funny, conical knit hat that ties under his chin and an expression of deadpan impassivity that makes him a ringer for Buster Keaton.

    Despite the apparent candor and spontaneity, however, none of Mr. Villers’s pictures catch their subject off guard. Picasso is always in charge, and the photographs have the generic feel of official publicity shots. What would be really interesting would be pictures that Picasso did not want his public to see.


    André Villers’s photographs of Picasso remain on view at Karl Kemp Antiques, 833 Madison Avenue, near 69th Street, through May 15. Information: (212) 288-3838.

    Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | RSS | Help | Back to Top


  • Stephen Savage

    April 24, 2005
    ESSAY
    The Between Boyfriends Tour
    By CINDY CHUPACK

    I used to be known as the writer from ”Sex and the City” who wrote a book. Until two other writers from ”Sex and the City” wrote a book called ”He’s Just Not That Into You,” and then I became known as someone who actually knows the people who wrote ”He’s Just Not That Into You.”

    Yes, at the same time that single women around the world (and I mean every single woman) realized, thanks to that book, that her relationship was not going as well as she thought, I realized my book sales were not going as well as I thought. Apparently, people were just not that into my book. They liked it, as a friend, some even loved it, but it wasn’t The One, and by that I mean No. 1 on Amazon like some other books we know. In fact, the last time I checked — today — my book (”The Between Boyfriends Book: A Collection of Cautiously Hopeful Essays”) was No. 75,314 on Amazon, and that’s in paperback. In hardcover it’s No. 174,852.

    Incidentally, these numbers are something only authors are concerned with. The general public has no idea that you can check sales rankings hourly on most major bookstore sites, or that those rankings can change drastically if five people buy your book (or if you buy five of your books) during one hour. Not that I have. I’m just pointing out that it’s clearly masturbatory (or masochistic) to check and compare rankings like this, when writers would be better served gauging self-worth the old-fashioned way: by simply Googling ourselves.

    You can’t measure success in book sales, though let me just say: their book sold what my book sold while you were reading this. And you can’t measure success in media attention, though let me just say: they were recently on Leno, and I was on Leeza. ”Leeza at Night.” It’s a radio show hosted by Leeza Gibbons, who was very nice, and said on the air that my eyes sparkled.

    No, success can only be measured by your own definition of success, and when I wrote my book I had three modest hopes: (1) I wanted to be proud of the book, and I am. (2) I wanted the book to sell to people who were not in my immediate family, and it has. In fact, what I didn’t anticipate is that my immediate family would not want to pay for their copies. And (3) I wanted to meet the love of my life on the book tour. And I did . . . meet a lot of people on my book tour. A lot of great single women.

    My readings were filled with women (as long as I got the apologetic, self-promoting e-mail message out in time), and what these friends of friends wanted to know was not what inspired me to write the book, or how I came up with the clever title; they wanted to know how to meet men. ”On the show there are always men!” they would shout. ”Where the hell are the men?” I was hoping they’d tell me.

    One by one I met my book’s audience, in Chicago, in Dallas, in Fort Lauderdale — not in concert halls like David Sedaris, but at least in bookstores, as opposed to another writer I know whose readings were banished to living rooms after his publisher caught him trying to set up his own bookstore appearances. Apparently a publisher only gets so many readings in each store, and it was made clear to my friend (when he was told never to call another bookstore again, not even about books) that he was not a priority. So there’s that: I was a priority, but only because of my ”Sex and the City” credit, which I did not want on the cover of my book for reasons that now elude me. Thus, the second most popular question at my readings after ”Where the hell are the men?” was: ”Does Sarah Jessica Parker get to keep her shoes?” (Yes, but she donates most of them to charity.)

    I actually enjoyed meeting fans of the show, and meeting the occasional fan of the book, but it became clear this was not how I would be meeting the love of my life. Sure, once in a blue moon a nice-looking man would show up, and he would invariably be someone I once dated. Someone who had heard that I wrote a book. Someone I might have mentioned in the book. Someone who was, frankly, not pleased.

    When this happened, when an ex showed up, he would never say hello before the reading. The ex likes to be discovered during the reading, but not like Mr. Big at Carrie’s book reading, a breath of fresh air — more like the Evil Fairy arriving at the christening she wasn’t invited to. And then he would smile, as if to say, ”Look who’s here!” throwing me off completely. I’d be thinking, When did he move to Phoenix? How did he find out about this, was there actually publicity? Have I gained weight since I saw him last? What did I say about him in the book? It wasn’t so bad, was it? Am I reading about him now? And then he would approach me afterward — without a book, always without a book, because, ”Oh, I’ve read the book” — and introduce me to the prettier, thinner, more appreciative, more discreet woman he is now happily married to. In fact, they’re having a baby, which they probably conceived in the Barnes & Noble bathroom while I was discussing whether Kim Cattrall was like her on-screen character. (Sometimes.)

    Anyhow, all was not lost because a book tour is not only bookstores. There is press. And press is read by men, often on the toilet, but still, press seemed more promising than the Lilith Fair my readings had become. And I did get some press. I even got interviewed on the ”Today” show,” which seemed like a giant coup until ”He’s Just Not That Into You” was an entire episode of ”Oprah.” And then another episode of ”Oprah.” And then an entire ”Larry King” show. They still haven’t been on Leeza though.

    So I did not meet the man of my dreams on my book tour. In fact, although my book was popular with women (it was, for one week following my ”Today Show” appearance, No. 27 on the extended New York Times best-seller list, the ”extended” list being another thing only authors know about), I realized it was not a great selling tool for potential boyfriends. My unfortunately nonfiction book basically outlined and highlighted every mistake I’d ever made with men, except the mistake of giving a guy my book as soon as I met him, because I was so excited to have written a book. But that’s what I did when I finally met the man of my dreams (post-tour, once I had contact with men again), and despite that tactical error, despite breaking every rule in ”The Rules,” despite his many disclaimers that he was ”not the marrying kind,” which, according to ”He’s Just Not That Into You” translates into ”he’s just not that into you”- despite all that, he recently proposed. He actually rode up on a white horse dressed as a knight (I’m not making this up) after a friend lured me to the beach at sunset. And that friend was Liz Tuccillo, one of the authors of ”He’s Just Not That Into You.”

    I will always be amazed that Mr. Not the Marrying Kind got the horse, the suit of armor and the perfect ring, but the fact that he got Liz Tuccillo . . . she’s very hard to book these days.

    Cindy Chupack was an executive producer of ”Sex and the City.” She is the author of ”The Between Boyfriends Book.”

    Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | RSS | Help | Back to Top


  • Marc Royce/Random House

    James Atlas

    April 24, 2005
    ‘My Life in the Middle Ages’: Making It
    By JAMES CAMPBELL
    MY LIFE IN THE MIDDLE AGES
    A Survivor’s Tale.
    By James Atlas.
    220 pp. HarperCollins Publishers. $25.95.


    Giving up drinking doesn’t make you live longer, the old joke goes; it only feels like it. Since he entered his 50′s, James Atlas has renounced a variety of pleasures. ”Not only do we not drink or smoke,” he writes of a reunion with two old friends; ”we don’t eat either.” At dinner, it’s salad and decaf all around. Atlas has even cut down on reading. ”The hurried pace of life erodes our capacity to read,” he complains, and ”makes a tough job even tougher.” Shadowed by guilt, he enjoys listening to Pepys’s diary on tape while driving his car, but the printed page fatigues him, even when it contains the words of George Eliot or Dostoyevsky. ”Much as I savor the experience of immersion in a good book, the way it takes over your life, becomes your life, my Samsung gleams at my side, speed-dial at the ready.”

    A quarter of a century ago, authors principally associated with fiction or the literary essay turned to travel writing for a spot of recreation. Nowadays, the urgent voyage is into the heart of oneself. If you can confront a little darkness along the way — drug or alcohol addiction, sex abuse, racism; all overcome, naturally — so much the better. The literary motto of our age is that everyone has a memoir in them.

    ”My Life in the Middle Ages” is an occasionally amusing, frenetic, prolix exercise in the genre. Atlas sets out to show how an energetic, all-purpose literary man — he is the author of biographies of Saul Bellow and the poet Delmore Schwartz, and of a novel, ”The Great Pretender”- is worn down by the battery of worries and disappointments that are commonly the reward for having survived a half-century. Atlas has discovered that middle age is a hell of disintegration that his younger self had assumed was reserved for other people. To judge by the details, it is a well-appointed hell: a car, a house in the country and an apartment in Manhattan, an adored family, loving parents who cultivated the taste for books that gave him a decent career. But Atlas can’t see the trees for the wood. Middle age means not only the loss of youth, but a newfound intimacy with death. ”Like a man on a subway platform awaiting a train whose vibration on the rails prefigures its arrival, I feel its approach.” He is worried about money (or the lack of it), success (ditto), his physical condition, his mental health. In a chapter called ”Failure,” he writes, ”I’m so obsessed with this theme that I actually keep a ‘failure file.’ ” The file includes consoling words by other writers, such as Paul Auster’s remark that ”I went through a period of years when everything I touched turned to failure.” To be reminded of this bucks up Atlas so much that he adds, ”Ah!”

    In an airy prose that seems not sufficiently upholstered to bear the weight of his concerns (other chapters are titled ”Time,” ”God,” ”Death”), Atlas suggests that the main difference between him and Auster is that his ”period of years” extends to the present. Most of the writing in ”My Life in the Middle Ages” is anecdotal, and many of the anecdotes involve ”a friend of mine,” or more typically ”a friend, a successful doctor,” or ”a distinguished friend,” or ”a well-organized friend.” The device is used to cast our author as an unsuccessful, undistinguished, ill-organized persona, but one who might earn our empathy through candor. ”I . . . curled up . . . and wept,” he writes (one of many weeping sessions), recalling the rejection of a first novel. When he finally broke into print, things scarcely improved. A reviewer of ”The Great Pretender” admitted he’d ”laughed out loud” when reading the novel, ”but he wasn’t sure ‘who the joke was on.’ ” Christopher Lehmann-Haupt’s ”painful” review in The New York Times left Atlas lying ”rigid in bed, listening to the angry horns of taxis down in the street.”

    Candor can be good for the soul, which is presumably how this veteran of the therapist’s couch intends us to take it. On the other hand, it is unedifying to confess too much to people you do not know. Atlas’s confessions often conceal as much as they reveal. ”I left a succession of jobs with impulsive haste and ended up at a newsweekly.” What jobs? Which newsweekly? When? In a section called ”Shrinks,” Atlas, whose problems up to this point have been focused on the fact that his country house is less grand than those of other people (”You should have a box for envy,” he tells one therapist who is having him fill out a form), springs the news that he suffers from depression. ”It comes out of nowhere, seizes you in its grip, and drives out all happy memories. When you’re in this condition you look back on your life and remember only the bad parts.” Once again, though, the section seems underwritten (”Depression is like an illness — it is an illness”) and the baring of the soul ultimately reserved. ”You’re secretive,” says a therapist when Atlas ”clammed up rather than confessing my latest misdeed.”

    ”My Life in the Middle Ages” is a chatty book, and the chat is frequently engaging, even if the reader feels the urge to move down the bar from the guy who’s had one Perrier and lime too many. To have worked for The New Yorker, The Atlantic Monthly, The New York Times Book Review and The Times Magazine, in addition to the mystery newsweekly, to have punctuated those jobs with the writing of well-received biographies, and then to write a book bleating about a lack of fulfillment seems like self-pity, and people who are self-pitying are boring, as a friend of mine, ”a successful poet,” used to say. When Atlas remembers that there are people in the world worse off than he, his ironic self-deprecation turns to Sunday sermonizing: ”If we contemplate our own lives, not the phantom life on the other side, we might find things in them to envy -a family that’s intact; a job we like; good health (the thing we take for granted and on which all happiness depends).”

    In the discussion of his loss of literary appetite, Atlas recalls reading ”Anna Karenina” on the London tube, ”holding the fat paperback open with one hand and gripping the strap with the other.” As Levin waits in an anteroom while his wife gives birth, fearing she must be dying, only to be presented with a healthy baby, Atlas held on to his strap and ”wept alongside Levin in a fit of rhapsodic grief.” For once the reader is not impelled to snap, ”Pull yourself together.” The author has presented himself in the throes of a complex emotional experience, in one of the simplest and most satisfying actions available to literate folk: reading a novel on a train. It has nothing to do with other people’s houses, other people’s stock-market bounty, other people’s more successful books or a gleaming Samsung, whatever that is.

    James Campbell’s latest book is ”This Is the Beat Generation.” He works at The Times Literary Supplement in London.

    Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | RSS | Help | Back to Top


  • Lou Beach

    Reading from left: Top row, Billy Martin (The New York Times), Mario M. Cuomo (Don Pollard/Simon & Schuster), Howard Cosell (Associated Press). Second row, George Steinbrenner (The New York Times), Bella Abzug (The New York Times), Edward I. Koch (Keith Myers/The New York Times). Third row, Rupert Murdoch (Reuters), Steve Rubell (Associated Press), David Berkowitz, a k a Son of Sam (Fred R. Conrad/The New York

    Greg Martin/Farrar, Straus & Giroux


    April 24, 2005
    ‘Ladies and Gentlemen, the Bronx Is Burning’: That 70′s Show
    By JON MEACHAM

    LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THE BRONX IS BURNING
    1977, Baseball, Politics, and the Battle for the Soul of a City.
    By Jonathan Mahler.
    Illustrated. 356 pp. Farrar, Straus & Giroux. $25.

    One summer afternoon in 1957 at Yankee Stadium, batting practice was under way, and Billy Martin felt horrible. Disconsolate and probably hung over, only recently traded from his beloved Yankees to the Kansas City Athletics, Martin had returned to New York for the first time since losing his pinstripes, and was about to take the field against his pals (and old drinking buddies) Mickey Mantle and Whitey Ford. The Roman Catholic archbishop of New York, Cardinal Francis Spellman, was in the stands, and asked for a word with Martin, the scrappy second baseman. As Jonathan Mahler tells the story in his entertaining and illuminating new book, ”Ladies and Gentlemen, the Bronx Is Burning,” Spellman asked Martin how he liked Kansas City. ”Oh, just fine, Your Eminence,” Martin answered. The more Martin thought about the prelate’s kindly question, though, the gloomier he got. ”How do I like it in Kansas City?” Martin mused once he was back on the field. ”I wanted to ask him, ‘How would you like it in Kansas City?’ ” New York was the thing; nothing else would do. Two decades later, in 1977, Martin was back in a Yankee uniform as the team’s manager, standing in the spikes of Casey Stengel. ”Life is a very serious thing,” Martin said, ”and baseball has been my life. What else has my life been? That’s why, when I lose a ballgame, I can’t eat. Sometimes I can hardly sleep. If you’re in love with the game, you can’t turn it on and off like a light. It’s something that runs so deep it takes you over.”

    Martin might as well have been talking about New York itself. E. B. White called the city the ”capital of everything,” and New Yorkers would not argue with him. The dramas particular to New York, a place of extremes, are more often of universal interest than, well, Kansas City’s. It should not be surprising then that Mahler, a contributing writer for The New York Times Magazine, believed a layered account of a single year in the life of the city, 1977, could sustain a book — nor should it be surprising that he was right. In the long sweep of American history, of course, 1977 is not exactly 1865, 1941, 1968 or 2001. Yet from porn shops to gay bathhouses, from Yankee Stadium to City Hall, from the blackout to Son of Sam, from Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post to the rise of SoHo and Studio 54, the city was living through what Mahler convincingly calls ”a transformative moment . . . a time of decay but of rehabilitation as well.”

    After a fire broke out in a school near Yankee Stadium during the 1977 World Series, Howard Cosell seemed to capture far more than a passing news story when he said on the air, ”There it is, ladies and gentlemen, the Bronx is burning” — at once encapsulating the era and giving Mahler his eventual title. The book is peopled with rich characters and strange, striking juxtapositions. In the Bronx, doing battle with one another and, occasionally, with opposing teams, there are Martin, George Steinbrenner and Reggie Jackson. In politics, Bella Abzug, Abe Beame, Ed Koch and Mario Cuomo go to war for the mayor’s office, though one wonders why anyone would have wanted the job. Still at large, wielding a .44 Magnum, the serial killer Son of Sam writes a letter to Jimmy Breslin of The Daily News: ”Hello from the gutters of N.Y.C. which are filled with dog manure, vomit, stale wine, urine and blood.” But you did not have to be a murderer who believed ”a father figure named Sam” had told you to shoot people to detect signs of a fraying civic life in New York in 1977.

    Mahler marshals his evidence well. Crime had hit historic highs. Between 1973 and 1976 New York lost 340,000 jobs, and ”pornographic institutions” grew from 9 in 1965 to 245 by 1977. When the power failed during a record heat wave in July, the blackout looting was epic and depressing; in the Bronx, a priest who went out to reassure his neighborhood came back to find his altar had been stolen. Christianity Today saw divine judgment in the power failure: ”The lack of electricity lit up the reality of people’s minds and hearts. That’s what people are like when separated from light and the light.”

    Murdoch’s Post, meanwhile, the paper he bought from Dorothy Schiff, was shaking the city up with paparazzi and Page Six. Once a grand liberal institution, in March 1977 The Post ran 21 items on Farrah Fawcett-Majors. Its blaring headline for the blackout looting: ”24 Hours of Terror.” The wise men of the establishment hated the sensationalism; they thought it bad for business. ”So your New York Post has now covered New York City’s first big crisis since you took over,” a chagrined Osborn Elliott, the former editor of Newsweek who was serving as deputy mayor for economic development, wrote Murdoch. ”Are you proud of what your headlines produced?”

    Still, for all the strife in the streets, a good time was had by many. ”Now is the summer of our discotheques,” Anthony Haden-Guest wrote in New York magazine in June 1977. ”And every night is party night.” Studio 54 took off; so did Plato’s Retreat, the popular swingers’ club. The first reported cases of the AIDS virus came in 1978, Mahler writes, which means 1977 ”was the last great year of unprotected, nonreproductive sex in the city.” Worlds collided once when Abzug stopped off at the Continental Baths, which Mahler describes as a ”bathhouse/cabaret/disco.” Shocked at what she saw, she called to scream at her campaign manager, crying: ”What the hell have you gotten me into? There are hundreds of guys up here wearing nothing but towels held together by Bella buttons!”

    By using the Yankees as a central metaphor for the city’s fortunes, Mahler is able to draw a nuanced portrait of this wild year. Baseball, like life, is at heart a prolonged test, a journey requiring skill, luck, patience and the capacity to lose dozens of games and still emerge as a winner. Like the city, the Yankees were roiled by internal woes but gave the world outsize personalities; like the city, they had dark moments yet endured, and, in six games in October against the Dodgers, prevailed, winning the World Series despite dugout jealousies, conflicts, crises and resentments. Martin — Howard Cosell called him a ”beleaguered little pepperpot” — fought for respect as Jackson grew into one of baseball’s first great independent superstars. Running on Scotch and self-doubt, Martin got the team to the Series in constant fear of his job (such was Steinbrenner’s deft ownerly touch even then), but could not quiet his demons.

    The future belonged not to Martin, who was a terrific manager but a terrified human being, fearful, his own worst enemy (though Steinbrenner ran a close second in that race). The New York being born in the heat of 1977 would instead be shaped, at least in the popular imagination, by men who did a better job of mastering their insecurities and channeling them into self-assertion. The ”emerging titans,” as Mahler calls them, were Koch, who defeated Cuomo in the mayoral campaign, Jackson, Steinbrenner and Murdoch. ”They were flawed, farsighted, self-made men who intuitively understood the city’s desire for drama and conflict because they shared it,” Mahler writes. Down the years other figures would come to fit in this template of the transformative, men like Giuliani, Trump, Bloomberg. New York would see worse days than it did in 1977 — indeed, on a brilliant blue September morning four years ago, the very worst of days — but the city has always successfully made its way through what George Eliot once called the world’s ”dim lights and tangled circumstance.” In the wake of Reggie Jackson’s legendary performance in Game 6 of the 1977 Series — three home runs in three swings — The New York Post asked, ”Who dares to call New York a lost cause?” Who, indeed? Occasionally chaotic, yes; sometimes cruel; but never truly, finally, irretrievably lost.

    Jon Meacham, the managing editor of Newsweek, is at work on a book about Andrew Jackson’s White House.

    Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | RSS | Help | Back to Top


  • Jerry Bauer/St. Martin’s Press

    Maureen Waller

    BOOKS OF THE TIMES | ‘LONDON 1945′
    Amid the Rubble, After London Took It
    By WILLIAM GRIMES
    LONDON 1945
    Life in the Debris of War
    By Maureen Waller
    Illustrated. 512 pages. St. Martin’s Press. $35.

    In 1940, at the height of the blitz, Britain adopted a defiant slogan: “London can take it.” By 1945, the mood had changed. Germany’s V-2 rockets were wreaking horrific damage on the city and its suburbs. Years of rationing, scarcity and endless queues had taken a toll. In Croydon, a 57-year-old woman turned on the gas and left a note that read, “This war lasted too long for me; I can’t go on.” Despite the brave face, London could not take much more.

    In her thoroughly engrossing “London 1945,” Maureen Waller describes a city on its last legs, hanging on desperately in the waning months of the war and looking forward, with a forlorn sort of hope, to a newer, better peacetime Britain.

    Mingling statistical data with eyewitness accounts, she builds up a detailed picture of daily life in London that moves easily from the horrific (mangled flesh hanging from trees) to the mundane (the annoyance of having to wear short socks). Food, fashion and bombs all get equal treatment, for the very good reason that Londoners spent at least as much time worrying about how to get a lamb chop as they did about dodging the next rocket.

    Ms. Waller, the author of “1700: Scenes From London Life” and “Ungrateful Daughters,” a study of the Glorious Revolution, begins with the bombs. The V-1, or doodlebug, had already claimed thousands of lives by late 1944, when it was supplanted by the even more frightening V-2, which approached its targets silently, prompting one London woman to call them “bombs with slippers on.”

    Somehow, the idea of a pilotless bomb made the “second blitz” worse than the one at the beginning of the war. “You accepted a plane with a man in it,” one Londoner said. “You couldn’t accept something that was automatic. It was this that struck psychologically at us in such a way that it destroyed our nerves.”

    It was not only the bombs that wore on nerves. Londoners also made do on food rations that Americans could not even begin to imagine. No American ever had to eat the infamous Woolton pie. Named after the minister of food, it was a vegetable pie thickened with oatmeal and commonly topped with potato. The average town dweller could expect to eat three eggs a month. Many women, who did without so that their children could eat more, took up smoking to cut their hunger pangs. Onions were so precious they were offered as raffle prizes. It came as a severe blow that after the war the food situation only grew worse.

    Clothing allowances were just as severe. Trouser cuffs were banned, and young boys had to go on wearing shorts until age 12. Women could only dream of stockings, at least until the Americans began turning up in large numbers. As a makeshift, they painted their legs with gravy browning or cocoa. In February 1945, a small ray of fashion sunshine peeked through the clouds. The ban on heels higher than two inches was lifted. But shoes remained so scarce that they created a new phenomenon, the meta-queue, as women stood in line hoping to get the right to join a queue for shoes.

    By and large, Ms. Waller writes, Londoners perceived the rationing system as fair and put up with it. That does not mean that the wartime economy was entirely on the up and up. With the police ranks thinned by war, and illegal guns proliferating (some sold by American G.I.’s), opportunity beckoned for a new breed of London criminal, the spiv, “distinct in his loud, garish clothing, his gait an imitation of the Chicago gangsters in Hollywood films.” In one of her more colorful chapters, Ms. Waller describes the exploits of the Elephant Boys of Bermondsey and the criminal gangs that flourished along the docks. Sometimes the heist would be jewelry, a smash and grab on Bond Street. But it might just as easily be a consignment of frozen turkeys. There was a white-hot market for anything and everything. “Sleek in their Savile Row suits, their molls dripping with furs and jewels, London’s underworld kings were having the time of their lives,” Ms. Waller writes.

    It was not only the criminals who benefited from the war. Ms. Waller also finds a silver lining in the social changes brought about by it. Concern for civilian morale forced the government to pay attention to its citizens, and to listen to their fears and hopes in a way it never had before. Like the New Deal in the United States, wartime social-welfare programs in Britain laid the foundation for a different kind of postwar state, one in which government took a much more active role in such areas as health care and housing. Under pressure, class distinctions began to erode.

    “The war had been a democratizing process,” Ms. Waller writes. “Rationing had succeeded in instilling in people’s minds the idea of fair shares for all: as Churchill’s daughter Sarah pointed out to him, the socialist policies that had been introduced in wartime had proved to be a force for good, not harm.”

    After getting a taste of Churchill-sponsored socialism during the war, the British electorate responded by throwing their wartime leader out of office just months after V-E Day and handing the Labor Party a landslide victory. It was a vote for houses, food and jobs, for a new, more equitable Britain. But London in 1945 looked like a defeated city. Cool Britannia was a long way off.

    Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | RSS | Help | Back to Top


  • Associated Press

    Jane Fonda in a mug shot of 1970

    April 24, 2005
    ‘My Life So Far’: The Roles of a Lifetime
    By MAUREEN DOWD
    MY LIFE SO FAR
    By Jane Fonda.
    Illustrated. 599 pp. Random House. $26.95.

    One day when she was playing cowgirl in the annual bison roundup on one of the New Mexico ranches of her husband, Ted Turner, Jane Fonda realized with a jolt that she was about to turn 60. She decided that the best way to meet this unnerving milestone was to make a short video of her life ”to discover its different themes.”

    She invited her daughter, Vanessa Vadim, a documentary filmmaker, to help her. ”Why don’t you just get a chameleon and let it crawl across the screen?” Vanessa suggested dryly.

    ”Ouch,” Jane writes. ”This was the rap on me: I’ve had so many personae over my lifetime that it’s easy to think, Who is she, anyway? Is there a ‘there there’? . . . When I looked at photos of myself over the years and matched them up with my husband of the time, I couldn’t help feeling that maybe it was true — maybe I simply become whatever the man I am with wants me to be: ‘sex kitten,’ ‘controversial activist,’ ‘ladylike wife on the arm of corporate mogul.’ . . . Was I just a chameleon, and if so, how was it that a seemingly strong woman could so thoroughly and repeatedly lose herself? Or had I really lost myself?”

    Fonda offers six decades’ worth of exhaustive excavations into her lost and found selves. ”My Life So Far” is not a lyrical title, but it captures Jungian Jane’s Sisyphean, Oprahphean struggle to process her pain and banish her demons. Her book is a psychobabble loop of ”tectonic shifting,” forfeiting her authenticity and feeling disembodied, then trying to reinhabit her body and ”own” her womanhood and her space and her vagina, her leadership and her wrinkles and her mother, so that her ”authentic self” can emerge; if the ”functioning self” and ”embodied self” could merge, she could fully engage with another fully authentic person in mutual affirmation, a whole being not overlapping into another being in a ”relational dance of patriarchy,” and live happily ever after in a ”shrinking, congested planet with diminishing resources and no vast, conquerable frontier to escape and expand into.”

    And certainly no more of those tawdry threesomes!

    Her odyssey of self-discovery, with trendy incarnations from Parisian Barbarella to L.A. aerobics queen to born-again Georgian, leads to stilted and earnest pronouncements like: ”Sustainability in a relationship is as critical as it is in the environment.”

    And: ”The subtle power of sexist roles and their inherent inequality has been deeply imprinted in all of us raised under them.” And this about finding God: ”It was more an experiencing of His presence, a psychic lucidity, that was allowing me access to something beyond consciousness. It wasn’t long, however, before I found myself bumping up against certain literal, patriarchal aspects of Christian orthodoxy that I found difficult to embrace.” Duh.

    At first you think how much more readable her book would be if an editor had chopped out large chunks of ponderous psychic burrowing. But then you realize it all has to be in there, in her own voice. Otherwise, you wouldn’t appreciate what a broken doll Jane Fonda is, how achingly poignant her story is and how much she’s accomplished despite hideously dysfunctional parents who left her unable to comprehend or savor how smart and talented and pretty she was.

    Hollywood poured acid on her ego. In her first movie, ”Tall Story,” Jack Warner, the head of the studio, made her wear falsies, and the director, Joshua Logan, a family friend, suggested she consider having her jaw broken and reset and her back teeth pulled to create ”a more chiseled look.”

    The vulnerable, yearning honesty that has made her such a powerful actress in Oscar-winning roles in ”Klute” and ”Coming Home” breaks through the therapy jargon. Her unrequited love story with her cold and brooding father, a man disgusted by displays of emotion or weakness, is Greek drama. She says she was trapped playing Athena to his Zeus. John McCain’s heart might melt, and he might forgive Fonda her awful Hanoi Jane foolishness, if he were to read the portrait of this lonely little girl in pigtails who grew up in a ”Charles Addams-y” house in Greenwich, Conn., eating spinach and Spam, with no warmth or attention from a manic-depressive mother and a repressed father who flew into ”Protestant rages” and ignored his children in favor of his acting career and serial wives.

    At 9, she tried to share her dad’s interest in reading: ”I got the novel ‘Black Beauty’ and sat in a chair opposite him. He hadn’t acknowledged my presence, but when I came to a passage that made me want to laugh, instead of stifling the laughter I encouraged it, hoping he’d ask me to share with him what was so funny. But he never looked up or said anything. It was as though I weren’t even there.”

    Her mother is an eerie, spectral figure, a sexy New York sophisticate who had been sexually abused as a child by the piano tuner; she disintegrates before her daughter’s eyes, collecting and mounting butterflies or showing terrified Jane her botched breast surgery, leaving the confused little girl with the impression that it was her mother’s fault that her dad was never around. ”I think it was around that time, maybe right there on that bed, that I vowed I would do whatever it took to be perfect so that a man would love me,” Fonda writes.

    After Henry Fonda asks for a divorce, her mother ends up in a straitjacket in an institution, coming home only to surreptitiously snatch a hidden razor she will use to slit her throat. On that day, her dad visits Connecticut long enough to sit 12-year-old Jane on his lap, tell her that her mother has died of a heart attack, arrange for a cremation and then return to New York to star in ”Mister Roberts” that night. ”Didn’t miss a beat,” Fonda writes.

    With no one to talk to about her budding sexuality, Jane grew paranoid over the years that she was a boy in a girl’s body. Failing to get her father’s attention, she simply tried to inhabit him — and perhaps one-up him. Henry Fonda was famous for characters who fought for social justice in ”12 Angry Men,” ”The Ox-Bow Incident,” ”Young Mr. Lincoln” and ”Clarence Darrow,” so Jane Fonda wanted to be famous for it in real life. But even that backfired with her father, who scorned her activism and stopped speaking to her at times. ”I realized that if I wanted his attention, disapproval was the best I could hope for,” she writes. Besides, she was on the road so much, she ended up becoming an absentee parent just like her own. (In Jane jargon, she had a hard time breaking ”that cycle of disconnect.”)

    She calls the chapter about her father dying ”Closure,” but she should have called it ”Gaping Wounds.” When she reports some bit of paternal iciness, her pain jitters off the page: ”Dad could spend hours stitching a needlepoint pattern he had designed or doing macrame baskets. . . . But to me, Dad was not a gentle person. He could be gentle with people he didn’t know, utter strangers. Often I run into people who describe finding themselves sitting next to him on trans-Atlantic flights and go on about what an open person he was, how they drank and talked with him ‘for eight hours nonstop.’ It makes me angry. I never talked to him for 30 minutes nonstop!”

    She says the only time her father referred to her looks was when he would send his wife to tell teenage Jane to wear a less revealing bathing suit or a looser belt; once she overheard him say her legs were too heavy. ”I went to bed and slept for two days, the only way I knew to escape those words that haunted me for the rest of my life,” she writes. Hating her body and face, she turned to anorexia, Dexedrine, diuretics and bulimia, calling purging ”somewhat orgasmic.”

    Fonda offers fair and fascinating portraits of her three husbands.

    The French director Roger Vadim was a charming rogue, a compulsive gambler who ran through much of her inheritance from her mother. He turned Jane into Barbarella and denounced jealousy as ”bourgeois.”

    ”Then one night he brought home a beautiful red-haired woman and took her into our bed with me,” the author writes. ”She was a high-class call girl employed by the well-known Madame Claude. It never occurred to me to object. I took my cues from him and threw myself into the threesome with the skill and enthusiasm of the actress that I am. . . . Sometimes there were three of us, sometimes more. Sometimes it was even I who did the soliciting.” The next morning, after Vadim had left, she would have coffee with the women as ”an antidote to objectification.”

    Vadim, she says, ”knew how to validate only my facade.” She went into her radical chic phase, learning about black voting rights from Marlon Brando and the Vietnam War under the tutelage of Simone Signoret. ”Never underestimate what might be lying dormant beneath the surface of a back-combed blonde wearing false eyelashes,” she writes.

    After a ”deep hair epiphany,” she traded the blond mane for a brown shag and minis for jeans and jetted off to New Delhi on a solo search for inner truth — even though she knew by leaving that she was not ”countenancing the personhood of my baby.” By the time she got back to the Beverly Wilshire, she was ”Jane of Arc,” as Vadim mockingly called her. Looking out the hotel window, she wondered, ”How could we live this way when there were New Delhis in the world?”

    She divorced Vadim, sold her Biedermeier antiques and set up an apartment in downtown Los Angeles with her baby, wooden cable spools for tables, mattresses on the floor and beanbag chairs from the Salvation Army.

    She admits she was often humorless and defensive when she was working on her ”expanding consciousness as an activist” and confesses that as she watched her old taped interviews with her son, Troy, she wanted to shout, ”Will someone please tell her to shut up?”

    She and Troy’s father, Tom Hayden, met, not cute but causey. Having finished a book about how the Vietnam War paralleled American ”genocide” against Native Americans, he showed up at a slide show she had given about Vietnam. He was wearing a long braid and ”rubber sandals of the type I’d been told the Vietnamese made out of the tires of abandoned U.S. vehicles,” and asked her for help with an art exhibit designed ”to show the Vietnamese as human beings.” Within days, they were making love on the living room floor.

    He tutored her on the Pentagon Papers and persuaded her to visit Hanoi, but did not go with the well-meaning but naïve actress to save her from the gaffe that would haunt her forever — sitting on a North Vietnamese antiaircraft gun site.

    Wanting to live like ”the people,” Jane and Tom moved onto the second floor of a house in blue-collar Ocean Park with cockroaches and thin walls. She took their clothes to the Laundromat.

    Tom took the money Jane raised for his unsuccessful run for the United States Senate. He also apparently fooled around with the sexy baby sitter while his wife was off shooting ”Julia.” At a screening of ”Coming Home,” a film about Vietnam veterans that she developed, produced and starred in, he disdainfully stalked out, saying, ”Nice try.”

    Even though she started her wildly successful fitness business to support Hayden’s workers’ rights grass-roots organization, he saw it as ”an exercise in vanity.” After ”Coming Home” opened, Tom called Jane and her producing partners to a meeting to, as she writes, ”express his own barely suppressed rage over what he viewed as the injustice of a movie star receiving so much attention when the ‘real’ people . . . never get public credit.” The chi she had been building and endorphins she had been releasing in her workouts did not stop her from feeling worthless. ”By choosing denial,” she writes, ”I had permitted inferiority.” To Hayden’s credit, he told the two-time Oscar winner not to get fake breasts, but she ignored him.

    She produced ”On Golden Pond” to get her father the golden statuette he’d never won, but he still wouldn’t deign to discuss the scenes they shared in the movie. When she needs bracing during filming, she gets it from the highhanded and softhearted Kate Hepburn, who deemed Henry Fonda ”cold, cold, cold.” Jane collects the Oscar for him — ”the happiest moment of my life,” she writes — and brings it to him at home, as he was too ill to attend the ceremony. Sitting in his wheelchair, he does not say anything about it or thank her. She thinks she reads on his face that he is pleased. As he was dying, she sat with him hour after hour, happily massaging ”his beautiful, long, pale feet.”

    When she turned 51, Hayden announced he was in love with another woman. After her divorce, she got a cold call from a man whose voice was so booming she had to hold the phone away from her ear. Her portrait of Ted Turner leaps off the page, a hyperactive Rhett Butler in need of Ritalin, a man who buys ranches faster than Jane can pack her bags, a chauvinist, narcissistic boy-savant who bangs his head and fists against the wall when he realizes Jane loves Jesus as much as him.

    Turner, she says, was ”a 3-D stereophonic Shakespearean-level, sound-and-light show” who offered ”fountains-of-Versailles-and-fireworks sex.” On their first date he eagerly tells her, ”I have friends who are Communists,” adding, ”Gorbachev is my buddy and so is Castro.” He calls her for ”fonda-ling.” He tells her she’s perfect for him, arguing that she can give up her career because her last two movies were ”real dogs” and that the only negative he can see to their being a couple is her age (the same as his own). When Jane first succumbs to his charms, he yells, ”Hot dog!”

    In the beginning, he cheats on her. He calls it ”a tic” and has a Freudian block against the word ”monogamous,” always saying ”magnanimous” instead. When Jane realizes he’s had a nooner in his office, she begins hitting him around the head and shoulders with the car phone — ”Simultaneously, part of me was thinking that I’d never seen anyone do this in a movie and what a good scene it would make,” she writes wryly — and pours bottled water on him.

    In the end, he cheats on her and stifles her, not wanting her to do anything that takes her from his side, even going into a rage when she wants to visit her daughter, who is having a baby. The man who once ridiculed his ash-stained employees on Ash Wednesday as ”Jesus freaks” and called Christianity ”a religion for losers” was also, of course, hostile to ”anything metaphysical.”

    She moves into her daughter’s guest room in Atlanta: ”I had gone from 23 kingdom-size properties and a private plane that could sleep six to a small guest room with no closet in a modest house in a charming but not quite gentrified section of Atlanta.”

    She has her breast implants taken out, embraces Christianity and feminism, gives up drinking and becomes ”pregnant with myself.”

    ”The failures are what deliver us to ourselves,” she concludes. ”You don’t get Real by playing it safe.”

    If only Henry Fonda had been a hugger.

    Maureen Dowd, the author of ”Bushworld,” is an Op-Ed columnist for The Times.

    Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | RSS | Help | Back to Top


  • Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times

    Maureen Dowd
    April 27, 2005
    OP-ED COLUMNIST
    U.N.leash Woolly Bully Bolton
    By MAUREEN DOWD

    Why are they picking on poor John Bolton? Everyone knows the man is perfect for the United Nations job.

    For one thing, his raging-bull temperament is ideally suited to an organization steeped in global pettifoggers and oil-for-food pilferers.

    The uncombed, untethered Mr. Bolton is fabulously operatic – the Naomi Campbell of the Bush administration, ready at a moment’s notice to beat up on underlings.

    Who doesn’t want to see Old Yeller chasing the Syrian ambassador down the hall, throwing a stapler at his head and biting at his ankles?

    Who doesn’t want to see him foaming at the mouth – yes, it will be hard to tell – at the Cuban delegate over Castro’s imaginary W.M.D.?

    Who doesn’t want to see him mau-mauing the Iranian mullahs?

    Who doesn’t want to see him once more misusing National Security Agency eavesdropping technology, this time to spy on Kofi and son?

    Who doesn’t want to see him outrage North Korea by calling Kim Jong Il a fat, maniacal munchkin?

    Even if his suave statesmanship were not so perfectly suited to high-level diplomacy, Mr. Bolton should still get the job. A ruthless ogre who tried to fire intelligence analysts who disagreed with his attempts to stretch the truth on foreign weapons programs deserves to be rewarded as other Bush officials have been.

    After all, he was in sync with the approach of Condi Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, Stephen Hadley and Bob Joseph – who were all up for big jobs after they torqued up intelligence to fit the White House’s theological beliefs.

    Condi breezed into the secretary of state job, even after she helped Dick Cheney gin up the Iraq war, ignoring reports debunking the notion of Iraqi nuclear tubes, and even after she told Congress she’d shrugged at the Aug. 6, 2001, presidential daily brief headlined “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.”

    Mr. Wolfowitz was eager to sell the war, ignoring predictions of insurgency and possible civil war. So he and Donald Rumsfeld left our troops so stretched and vulnerable that they were reduced to using cardboard cutouts to stand sentry, and to jury-rigging Humvees that had not been properly armored, resulting in many lost limbs and lives.

    So Mr. Wolfowitz now has the prestigious job of World Bank president.

    George Tenet presided over the two biggest intelligence failures in modern history. He slam-dunked a Medal of Freedom out of them.

    Just as Mr. Bolton and Mr. Cheney tried to shovel distortions into Colin Powell’s U.N. speech, Mr. Hadley and Mr. Joseph put distortions into President Bush’s State of the Union address.

    Dick Cheney intimidated C.I.A. analysts before the war. And he and President Bush let North Korea and Iran race ahead with their nuclear programs, and let Osama roam free, while they indulged their idée fixe on Iraq. Their reward? A second term.

    In the Bush 41 era, good manners and judiciousness were prized. In Bush 43′s Washington, bristling and bullying are the cardinal virtues. Putting an ideological filter on reality is a good career move.

    Once more using 9/11 as a rationale, Karl Rove told USA Today that the terrorist attacks proved that officials should “be contesting, not simply supinely receiving, information from security analysts.” He also rejected a deal with Senate Democrats on judiciary nominations and defended the rip-out-their-eyeballs tactics of Mr. Bolton and Tom DeLay.

    Mr. DeLay, who makes Donald Rumsfeld seem shy, created what The Washington Post called “an ethics-free zone” in the capital by bullying the House ethics panel, and now he and Dick Cheney are trying to bully the judiciary. Mr. Cheney also defended Mr. Bolton against criticism from the Colin Powell camp.

    Colin Powell never got it: there’s nothing wrong with a little abrasiveness to win global domination.

    We should give the Bush administration credit for not being hypocritical by supporting a mealy-mouthed, mewling conciliator along the lines of Jeanne Kirkpatrick. If John Bolton is unfairly denied a chance to ply his diplomatic talents at the U.N., maybe he can work for Bill Gates.

    After Mr. Gates shamefully backed down from supporting gay rights legislation – a Washington State preacher had threatened to boycott the company – Microsoft could use a feral muscleman to face down the evangelical bully.

    That’s a job – or an ankle – Mr. Bolton could really sink his teeth into.


    E-mail: liberties@nytimes.com

    Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | RSS | Help | Back to Top


  • Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times

    Thomas Krens, director of the Guggenheim Museum, is considering branches in sites ranging from the Hudson Yards to Singapore.

    April 27, 2005
    A Museum Visionary Envisions More
    By CAROL VOGEL

    Sitting in his small SoHo office after returning from Russia recently, Thomas Krens, director of the Guggenheim Museum, was flashing images, graphs and numbers from a laptop onto a flat-screen television. He was consumed by what he had seen in Russia, where he met with officials from the Kremlin Museum, as well as the deputy minister of culture, to negotiate loans for “Russia!,” a major exhibition that will fill the entire Fifth Avenue Guggenheim Museum when it opens in September.

    He described the wide range of treasures he hoped to borrow and the exhibition’s enormous cost: about $4 million, approximately what the Metropolitan Museum of Art spent to mount its blockbuster Byzantium exhibition last year. He said $2 million of the show’s cost was being paid by the charitable foundation run by Vladimir Potanin, president and chairman of one of the largest private Russian conglomerates and a member of the Guggenheim board. Mr. Krens was fascinated by the freewheeling spirit of Russia’s new generation of capitalists.

    “Russia in the 21st century has the largest concentration of natural resources around the world,” Mr. Krens said. “I’ve never felt such a concentration of money. It’s a boom town,” he said of Moscow, “as close to Las Vegas as anything I’ve seen. The entrepreneurial energy is enormous.”

    A few weeks ago, three months after triumphing in a “him or me” showdown with Peter B. Lewis, then the Guggenheim chairman, who demanded he stay focused on New York, the unchastened Mr. Krens took off for Mexico City with a delegation of board members, including the new chairman and president. Their purpose was to meet with President Vicente Fox about a possible Guggenheim satellite in Guadalajara. The museum is also in serious talks with Singapore.

    Such developments were at the heart of Mr. Lewis’s objections and subsequent resignation in January. Mr. Lewis, the museum’s biggest benefactor (during his 11 years on the board, he gave the Guggenheim about $77 million, nearly four times as much as any other board member in the museum’s history), walked away, saying the museum should concentrate on housekeeping at home rather than opening more Guggenheims around the world.

    But Mr. Krens, 58, whose reputation as a motorcycle-mad, globe-trotting visionary unconcerned about costs has made him the talk of the art world, doesn’t seem much changed since that three-hour meeting in January. Asked where his priorities are now – home or abroad – he said, “Both.”

    The key to his business plan is hiring big-name architects to design buildings that will become tourist destinations in themselves, like the Guggenheim’s Frank Lloyd Wright building on Fifth Avenue or its Frank Gehry-designed Guggenheim in Bilbao, Spain. And though the museum’s new leaders express caution about the budget, they share Mr. Krens’s vision.

    At a cocktail party last week at the Four Seasons restaurant to celebrate the museum’s new chairman, William L. Mack, a real estate developer, and its first female president, Jennifer Stockman, Ms. Stockman talked of “bringing art and culture to cities around the world.”

    “We are at a pivotal juncture to make a great institution even greater,” Ms. Stockman said.

    Mr. Mack, the founder of Apollo Real Estate Advisers and chairman of the Mack-Cali Realty Corporation, a real estate investment trust, stressed that he had created a more active board whose priorities were “budgetary responsibility, building the endowment and promoting education.”

    Still, he emphasized that the Guggenheim was and always would be an international presence: “It is an international museum whose home is in New York.”

    Today’s board is driven by leading members of New York’s real estate world who share Mr. Krens’s dreams of empire building. Besides Mr. Mack, one of five trustees who joined the board two years ago, they include Stephen M. Ross, founder and chief executive of the Related Companies, and Robert C. Baker, the chairman and chief executive of Purchase, a New York-based national realty and development corporation. Ms. Stockman is president of Stockman & Associates, consultants specializing in technology.

    No one questions the success of the Guggenheim Bilbao, which has been attracting more than 900,000 visitors a year since it opened in 1997, or even the recently expanded Peggy Guggenheim Collection in Venice, which attracted 350,000 last year, 50,000 more than in 2003.

    But some board members – a defeated minority who decline to be quoted but say they believe the success of these satellites are exceptions – argue that the Guggenheim has no business trying to spread its name any further when there is so much work to be done at home.

    Attendance at the Guggenheim plummeted after 9/11, as it did at all museums in New York City. But for the Guggenheim, the drop was particularly serious. Because so many of its visitors are tourists who come especially to see the building, a month after 9/11, admissions were down almost 60 percent, and revenue was about half of what it was supposed to be. About one-fifth of its staff had been laid off. It also was also forced to delay the opening of its branch in Las Vegas, and when it did open, only one portion survived: the Guggenheim Hermitage Museum, which is jointly run with the Hermitage in St. Petersburg, Russia, and plans its exhibitions in collaboration with the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna. The Guggenheim’s SoHo branch also closed in 2001.

    Slowly, the museum has been making its way back, partly through the success of its satellites, which also include a Guggenheim in Berlin.

    Mr. Krens said he was constantly approached by cities wanting to share in the so-called Bilbao effect. Besides Guadalajara – to be designed by the French architect Jean Nouvel, the Mexican architect Enrique Norten or Asymptote Architects in SoHo – and Singapore, other outposts under consideration include one in Rio de Janeiro, also designed by Mr. Nouvel; a Hong Kong museum that would be part of a larger development designed by Lord Norman Foster; and a collaboration with the Hermitage in St. Petersburg on an extension of the Hermitage with a Guggenheim component.

    There are financial advantages to opening Guggenheims around the world. Cities that approach the Guggenheim about building a museum can expect to spend $150 million to $200 million, including land and construction, Anthony Calnek, a Guggenheim spokesman, said. The cost depends on the location of the museum and its size and complexity. The host city or country would also be expected to set aside funds every year to buy art; Bilbao, for example, spends $10 million annually on acquisitions and must subsidize operating deficits and pay a licensing fee. The Guggenheim Foundation also works with partners in buying and commissioning art. In Berlin, Deutsche Bank has commissioned works by artists like James Rosenquist, Jeff Koons and Gerhard Richter, which the bank owns 50-50 with the Guggenheim. Museum officials say that they hope that the Guggenheim Bilbao will buy back Deutsche Bank’s share.

    Mr. Krens defends himself against accusations of overspending and neglecting acquisitions and programming. He will probably be forever haunted by the critical ridicule of shows like “The Art of the Motorcycle,” in 1998, and “Giorgio Armani,” in 2000, even though they drew enthusiastic crowds.

    “These perceptions are hard to dislodge,” Mr. Krens said one morning, sipping an espresso in the lobby of the Mercer hotel in SoHo. He rattled off several historic exhibitions that rank among the 10 best-attended shows in the Guggenheim’s history: “Africa: The Art of a Continent,” in 1996; “China: 5,000 Years,” in 1998, “Brazil: Body & Soul,” in 2001; and “The Aztec Empire,” which closed in February. He named some major retrospectives: those of Claes Oldenburg, Mr. Rosenquist, Roy Lichtenstein, Ellsworth Kelly, Robert Rauschenberg, Roni Horn and Matthew Barney.

    During his 17 years as director, most of the board has stuck by Mr. Krens. An imposing 6 feet 5 inches tall, with an M.B.A. in management from Yale, he has a kind of shy uneasiness in social situations that is often taken for arrogance. Yet he is able to talk business in an articulate, persuasive manner that the board clearly admires.

    “Because of Tom’s vision, we are in an exciting moment now,” Ms. Stockman said. “He’s very smart and very persuasive. But we can’t do it all.”

    The New York, Venice and Las Vegas museums are part of the Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation, whose endowment was approximately $45.4 million as of Dec. 31, 2004. An additional $25 million in cash and pledges made thus far in 2005 brings the current endowment to $70 million. Another $25 million – including $15 million from Mr. Lewis – has been committed by trustees and the city for the restoration of the landmark Wright building. “By June, we should have another $15 million raised” for the endowment, Mr. Krens said. “We’re not exactly where we want to be, which is at about $150 million, but we’re at a historic high.”

    As for the operating budget, “We are operating at better than break even,” he said. The museum has also reduced the balance on public bonds issued in 1990 for the expansion and renovation of the Wright building, to $23.5 million as of Dec. 31, 2004,from $54.9 million. Mr. Calnek said, “We are achieving a balanced budget through vigilant expense management and diversified revenue sources, including income from our affiliates, licensing and subsidiaries, as well as from feasibility studies for new branches.”

    With so many New Yorkers running a museum that has long felt cramped, it would be no surprise if another architect-designed space were proposed for New York. Late in 2002, a proposal for a $950 million Gehry-designed Guggenheim at the foot of Wall Street in Lower Manhattan fell through for lack of funds and negative environmental-impact studies.

    Mr. Krens makes no secret of his consideration of the Hudson Yards on the West Side, where last summer a Gehry-designed Guggenheim was floated as part of the Jets Stadium proposal. (Mr. Ross of the Related Companies is a friend of Daniel L. Doctoroff, the deputy mayor for economic development, who is pushing for the stadium.) While Mr. Mack said this was not one of the museum’s priorities, he added that the board might consider it if a good opportunity came up. Mr. Krens, however, speaks of building a future Guggenheim there in more animated terms: “Whether there’s a stadium there or not, there may be three new subway stations,” he said. “This is the future of New York.”

    Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | RSS | Help | Back to Top


  • Sotheby’s


    Sotheby’s expects Chuck Close’s “John” to sell for $5 million to $7 million.