Last night's movie was "Meet the Missus"(1937), a wacky and very funny comedy about a housewife who is hooked on entering merchandising contests (sending in boxtops, answering questionnaires, etc.) Her husband protests, to no avail, and she is finally named "Mrs. Midwest" by the Happy Noodle Company, in what they are calling the "Mrs. America" pageant, the winner being the most "talented" housewife in the country. As in all of our most recent films, the innuendo is subtle but plain to see, for anyone looking. Of course, her husband leads the charge of fellow men in the same boat (whose wives wear the pants in the family), and in this case, the man's protest leads to him being named "Mrs. America" in a farcical send-up of traditional marriage roles. The always-lovely Anne Shirley co-stars as the couple's 17-year-old daughter. In 1941, she went on to star in the all-time classic "The Devil and Daniel Webster", which is available on Criterion and is highly recommended.
I am remembering more about the period between July 19th and August 5th, 1989, as reported in the last blog. In recent days, I am very much interested in what I call the "Rebecca Shaeffer afternoon" at Terry's, which I am currently placing on July 19th, the day Bardo was arrested.
What do you guys think about the march of time as it pertains to human actions? For example, what happens when someone gets away with a crime? And not just any old crime but one of extreme violence. We can already guess what happens to the victim, but what happens to the person who commits the violent act and gets away with it, and is never caught? Let's take our example a step further and say that this person's crime is never even acknowledged by anyone except a select few in a tight inner circle, because our guy is working within some larger organisation with the money and clout to pay people off, people like legislators, judges, etc. People in political positions who can "make certain crimes go away". And let's say that this person (our example) is not what is referred to as a "professional", like a hit man for the Mob who's killed many people and sloughs it off like it's his day job, but let's say instead that this person was a new guy, a wannabe who wanted "in" on the action of, say, a drug ring, or a sex ring, because he wanted to make some quick money, and he wanted in on what promised to be "easy" sex (he'd have "access" to a girl or girls), and he maybe even wanted in on some free drugs, and most of all, he wanted in on the power that his position would give him. Now let's further suppose that our guy was basically a regular shmoe, before he got involved with this ring. But now that he was "in", he was required to "do things" to get all that stuff that he wanted. Let's say he had to collect money, or even threaten people who didn't pay. Or even beat people up.
How would that change him? Would he develop a dark side, or would that dark side have already been present, lying under the surface, latent? Remember, he was previously a Regular Schmoe, not a professional thug, or even a natural-born thug, but became one because he got involved with the wrong people.
But let's then say that this guy found himself in way over his head, as the bagman for a drug courier, a job in which he suddenly had to rough people up. And because he wasn't used to it, but was "partnered" with a more seasoned thug who was used to it, the lifestyle freaked our guy out to whatever extent, and he started drinking heavily, and even drugging, to maintain his hold on his sanity.
Remember that he only joined this gang, who were familiar to him, and led by a "seemingly respectable family", because he wanted to make some easy money and screw some slutty chicks.
But now, let's really put him out on a limb. Let's say he was out one night with his more experienced, more ruthless "collection" partner, and they were collecting from a drug customer, and things got ugly and the customer got stabbed, or choked out, and perhaps had to go to the hospital or even died.
But then lets say that our Shmoe, who became a "collection" enforcer, got lucky and the crime got covered up. The man or men above him had the power or connections to make the knifing "go away". Let's say that the victim was never heard from again, and after all, he was only a drug customer to begin with, and a dishonest one at that, who didn't pay his bills. So he was considered "scum" and his killing was covered up, and swept under the rug, and our Schmoe now had "nothing to worry about".
Now, lets say that five years went by. Would he feel he was in the clear? How about when 10 years went by? Or 15? or 20?
How about when 35 years went by? Surely he would feel in the clear by that time. But would he still think about the murder? Or would he, after such a long time, have pushed it out of his mind?
How do you suppose that works? That is our "thought exercise" for this evening: "What happens, psychologically, to the person who gets away with a violent crime?" I think it is something to consider, especially because we know that the World at Large "moves on". Does that help the person to compartmentalize his past? To shove the memory into a now-dusty mental closet, never to be opened again? Does the passage of a vast amount of time allow him, or help him, to "make believe" in his own mind that the violent event never happened?
I am interested in these questions, of what happens to a perpetrator of violence, one who is never called to account, because I am a victim of extreme violence, and I don't have the luxury of being able to "pretend" that the assaults on me never happened.
Of course, I had amnesia of the violence (and the surrounding "event context") for four years before I remembered any of it, but what I find interesting now, is the reaction by certain people around me when I announced, beginning in October 1993, that I could remember some of the things that had happened to me.
The reason the reactions were, and are, interesting, is because they were (and are) not what you would expect from friends and family members. For instance, let's say (god forbid) that I had a sister who said "My goodness! I've had a memory come back! I was raped four years ago!", my reaction would be, "Oh my God! Who did it? Where? When, what was the date?" And then I'd ask a whole bunch of other questions. In other words, I would basically believe what she was telling me, or at least take it at face value, until she could sort it out and remember it in detail. And then I'd try to help her bring the perpetrator to justice, if she wanted my help.
But that's not what happened in my case.
When I started telling friends and family members: "Oh my God! I'm remembering that Lillian and Terry tried to kill me!", their response was to call me "delusional". That was the default word at the time. One person called me "crazy". And because the response of these family members and friends seemed entirely lacking in concern, and even in curiosity (no one said, "what do you mean? Where and when did all this happen?), I began to think that they each had their reasons for trying to "dismiss" (i.e. gaslight) me.
Of course, by now, 30 years later, we know exactly what their reasons were.
But what's also interesting is how the reaction has changed. "You're delusional!" has become "I don't wanna talk about it." I have two people in particular who use variations of that reaction. One says, "Let's not talk about that," anytime 1989 is brought up (which I generally don't do in person because I try not to put people on the spot, even if they are a-holes), and the other person invariably says, "I don't wanna talk about that!" This person is the one who once led the charge in trying to slander me as "delusional". But I just kept on working and compiling more evidence, until "delusional" morphed into "I don't wanna talk about it!"
And that's partly what I mean when I mention compartmentalization. Does "not wanting to talk about it" make the issue "go away" for the person who does not want to talk about it?
Well anyhow, this is all I have for tonight. I am working on the "Rebecca Shaeffer afternoon" because that is when the changes in Lilly's persona became extreme. What happened, in short, was that when she graduated CSUN (in May 1989), her Dad gave her a trip to France as a graduation present. She and I had an argument before she left, and my last words to her were "have a nice f-king vacation". When she got back from France, I hoped to repair things. She sent me what I call an Ultimatum Letter, in which she insisted I stop drinking, which I did. She said other things in the letter, too, which will appear in full in my book (the letter was reproduced in full in the 2008 version). But she did agree to a trial reconciliation, and we went to a movie the next day. "Batman" was the film, we saw it on June 24, 1989. Dave Small and Kelly were "coincidentally" sitting behind us (which we now know was 100% prearranged). But Lilly and I had a nice time at "Batman". Then she came back over the next weekend, and we went to three movies over the four-day Fourth of July holiday. We saw "Pink Cadillac", "Ghostbusters 2", and then "Great Balls of Fire", and things seemed back on track, at least to me. I was then ten days sober, Lilly seemed like her old self and was excited about her new job. She came back the next weekend and we saw "Do the Right Thing" and then "Lethal Weapon 2". After the latter film (which we saw on July 9th) we went to the McDonalds on Parthenia and Tampa, and she told me "I can't come over next weekend because I have to go on a business trip for my new job. But I'll be back two weekends from now, so don't worry." She wanted to assure me that our relationship was back on track.
Well, what happened was that ten days later, on July 19, I rode Pat's green 10 speed bike down to Terry's (Pat used to leave his bike at our house). When I got there, Lillian's car was parked outside the building. I buzzed the buzzer, Terry let me in, I saw Lilly sitting there and I said, "I thought you went to New York on a business trip?"
Well, that was the day when the whole Swinger/Porno thing was revealed, or started to be revealed. It later came out "in full" after we saw "Lock Up" on August 5th.
But July 19th was when it started. And the way in which that memory was triggered, was when I recalled watching the news about Rebecca Shaffer. And I thought to myself, "Man, that was a horrible day", because not only was the news horrific, but so was what happened in Terry's apartment. The memory of Rebecca Shaeffer reminded me that Lillian had been flippant and even sarcastic about her death, saying "Who cares?! I'm sick of hearing about this chick! People get murdered every day!"
And that brought back the memory-in-full, in which I was shocked, not only to find Lilly at Terry's apartment (after she'd assured me our relationship was back on track), and that I'd caught her in a lie about her "business trip", but most of all by the complete change in her demeanor. I'd never known her to be sarcastic and callous, especially about the murder of a young woman.
Of course, that afternoon at Terry's got a whole lot worse, as she and Terry let the Swinger cat out of the bag.......
And so what I am working on at the moment, in this monumental puzzle, is "what changed, during the period from July 9 to July 19th, 1989 - a ten day span - to cause such a radical change in her demeanor?"
And right now, I believe it had something to do with Terry's birthday, which was July 11. I will leave it at that for the moment. ////
No comments:
Post a Comment