BAD WALKING MEN

I seem to have seen more than the usual numbers of trailers for the new movie Gangster Squad, which may mean that the movie’s very good, or it may mean it’s very bad – large amounts of bought publicity attach to both.  Either way, there seems to be something all too familiar about the way it’s being sold: lots of images of dangerous looking men walking (or I dare say striding or strutting) across the screen or into the camera.

We’ve seen a lot of this before haven’t we?  If we’ve seen Mulholland Falls we’ve already seen Nick Nolte, who actually appears in Gangster Squad, doing something very similar indeed.  
          If you saw any of these guys walking down the street towards you, you’d cross the street to avoid them right?  The fact that they’re cops, that they’re morally ambiguous, but they’re more or less on our side, really doesn’t make any difference, does it?

Gangster Squad is based on a “true” story - which somebody, somewhere, decided long ago was a selling point for a movie – and it deals with the take down of gangster Mickey Cohen.  There’s no denying that Cohen was a very bad guy, but as a walker, above on the right, he just didn’t have that dangerous, threatening stride.

Compare and contrast with the Kray brothers.  If you saw these two psychos walking towards you, you wouldn’t just cross the street - you’d leave the neighbourhood.

Certain kinds of rock band have always liked to employ a dangerous strut, or swagger, as well as a bit of moral ambiguity.  For me there’s always been some serious disconnect between the image and the reality of the Clash, but there’s no denying they looked and dressed the part, above.

And finally this image, by Terry O’Neill, of Chairman Frank Sinatra, accompanied by admittedly fringe members of his “board.”  To some eyes, this picture shrieks “links to organized crime,” though defenders say no, no, he’s actually with his stunt double, his bodyguard, his personal assistant and the film set's head of security, who was an ex-cop.  The fact these guys just happen to look like mobsters is  a complete accident.

And even if Sinatra’s guys are complete softies, the image still delivers the same message: “I’m walking here, get out of my way.”  And you can see in the picture that everybody has.

         “Your way Frank, sure.”

THE WALKING CAMERA

If I look up from my desk and peer across the room, my eyes inevitably fall on a poster of one of my favourite images by one of my favourite photographers.  It’s Garry Winogrand’s image of two women at LAX airport walking toward what’s known as the Theme Building.  It looks like this:

In fact Winogrand took a great many of my favourite photographs.  He was, you’d say, a street photographer (one of those terms that seems to mean less and less the more you say it), and in the course of his work he did a lot of walking and photographed a lot of other walkers.  He’s usually associated with New York, but he took a lot of pictures in LA too.

He even took some in London.  The received wisdom is that his London photographs weren’t as good as his American ones, that his great skill was seeing a familiar environment with fresh eyes: when confronted by an unfamiliar environment this freshness disappeared and he was reduced to taking pictures of guardsmen or men in bowler hats.  Still, I’m very taken by the odd familiarity and strangeness of this one, titled Woman Entering a Cab, London:

 Winogrand did like shooting women in the street, so to speak, which in these days of the demonized male gaze seems a dodgy activity at best, but hell he had nothing on Miroslav Tichý.  I love Geoff Dyer’s description of Tichý’s working method,  “he spent his time perving around Kyjov, photographing women.” Well yes indeed.  I suppose Winogrand’s method was less pervy because it was less sneaky, though I know there are those who’d find this an overfine distinction.

Street photography has been much on my mind lately, having been hunkered down with Reuel Golden’s London: Portrait of a City, a grand photobook, showing London, its people and inevitably its walkers, from Oswald Mosley to the Kray Twins.  Full disclosure: I am mentioned approvingly therein. One picture that particularly stays with me, is the one below by Cecil Beaton, not really pervy I suppose, since it’s obviously a set up with a model, and because the photographer’s perviness was directed elsewhere.

I like taking pictures, I do it all the time, and I’m a good enough photographer to know I’m not a very good photographer. But once in a while I take a photograph that makes me happy.  Here is the best walking I've taken in a very long time, but Garry Winogrand,  I know it ain’t.

PROOF

... if proof were needed, that Dwight Garner "a book critic" (his employer's nomenclature) for the New York Times, leads a charmed life.

I suspect that for readers of this blog, the connections between walking, writing and reading don't need much explication, and here is Dwight, earlier this year, writing in the Times, and making a persuasive case for audio books.

He writes, “Keep an audio book or two on your iPhone. Periodically I take the largest of my family’s dogs on long walks, and I stick my iPhone in my shirt pocket, its tiny speaker facing up. I’ve listened to Saul Bellow’s “Herzog” this way. The shirt pocket method is better than using ear buds, which block out the natural world. My wife tucks her phone into her bra, on long walks, and listens to Dickens novels. I find this unbearably sexy.”

Above is a picture of the wife in question, Cree LeFavour.  No sign of audiobook, nor bra for that matter. 

THEORETICAL WALKING

When I was writing The Lost Art of Walking, my fellow psychogeographer (or whatever the hell we are) Iain Sinclair offered the opinion that people hadn’t lost the art, rather that we’ve lost the environment in which people can do any walking.  A nice distinction, though of course once the environment’s gone, people lose the art pretty shortly thereafter.

This issue of the walking environment is discussed in a new book titled Walkable City by Jeff Speck, a “a city planner who advocates for smart growth and sustainable design.” Funny, isn’t it, how you never come across a city planner who advocates stupid growth and unsustainability?  Maybe they don’t write books.  Or maybe they just lie in their author bios.

I’ve only just started reading the book, but I immediately see it contains a “General Theory of Walkability.”  Yes yes, a THEORY of walking, just what the world needs. “To be favored” Speck writes, “a walk has to satisfy four main conditions: it must be useful, safe, comfortable and interesting,” which strikes me as simultaneously feeble and condescending.  Of course I’m not going to argue that a walk should be dangerous and dull, and yet “useless” walking with a certain degree of “discomfort” is pretty much what I live for.

I’m also, in general, fairly happy making my own definition of “interesting,” but in case you’re one of the poor souls who doesn’t feel the same way, here’s Mr. Speck to help you.  “Interesting means that sidewalks are lined by unique buildings with friendly faces and that signs of humanity abound.” Kind of makes you want to get in your Hummer and do burnouts, doesn’t it?  Only theoretically, of course.

"Buildings with friendly faces" - oh spare me.