L.A. BLEU

I’ve come a little belatedly to a book by Catherine Corman titled “Daylight Noir: Raymond Chandler’s Imagined City.”  I like it a lot, but then I would.  I’ve never met any writer in Los Angeles who didn’t actively love Raymond Chandler, and not many photographers either.

There’s always a “visual” element in Chandler’s work, by which I mean that you “see” the world through his, or Marlowe’s, eyes.  And there have been various books on Raymond Chandler’s LA, generally well-meaning tomes with some slightly so-so photographs of the city, but Catherine Corman is the real deal.  For one thing, she’s Roger Corman’s daughter, so her LA pedigree is unimpeachable, and she can certainly do the noir look herself when she puts her mind to it.

Daylight Noir consists of 50 or so  moody, arty, square-format, black and white photographs, mostly architectural in some sense, some of them showing very specific LA locations, some of them kind of generic.  And attached to each is a quotation from Chandler.  Again, some of which are very recognizable, some less so.

The book has an introduction by Jonathan Lethem (a seal of approval for sure)  in which he says, “If architecture is fate, then it is Marlowe’s fate to enumerate the pensive dooms of Los Angeles, the fatal, gorgeous pretenses of glamour and ease, the bogus histories reenacted in the dumb, paste-and-spangles cocktail of style.’  Yes, Jonathan, but what if architecture ISN’T fate?

But anyway, it’s surely a good sign that Catherine Corman’s book sent me back to rereading Chandler’s novels, keeping an eye out for architectural detail.  Of course in The Big Sleep we all remember the hall of the Sternwood mansion, the entrance doors big enough to let in a troop of elephants, and the stained glass showing a knight rescuing a damsel in distress (that’s got to be pretty colorful, right?). 

At the back of the house there’s a “wide sweep of emerald grass and a maroon Packard,” and when Marlowe gets into the greenhouse where he meets the General,  “The light had an unreal greenish color, like light filtered through an aquarium tanks.”  I’m seeing a fair amount of color, aren’t you?

         

And when Marlowe gets to Geiger’s house, oh boy, there’s a thick pinkish Chinese rug, a broad low divan of old rose tapestry with some lilac-colored silk underwear strewn across it, a couple of standing lamps with jade-green shades, and a yellow satin cushion.  Carmen Sternwood is there, sitting naked on a fringed orange shawl.  OK, maybe that’s décor rather than architecture, but nevertheless this is some very colorful nor.

         Now obviously I wasn’t around in Chandler’s time, but as I walk around LA these days it looks like the most intensely colored cities I’ve ever been to.  Sure the color may be only skin (or stucco) deep, and sure there may be some dark things happening behind those cheerfully colored walls, but that's the nature of the beast, right?

One of the architectural touchstones from my earliest days of walking around in LA is the Blu Monkey Lounge on Hollywood Boulevard.  When I first saw it, it looked like this:

It seemed intriguing, secretive, vaguely sinister, a dive bar where bad things might happen. A little research suggested it was in fact just a loud bar with DJs and expensive drinks, not exactly a rarity in Hollywood, and not really my kind of place.  A little while late it looked like this:

I guess it was in some transient state as all the buildings around it get gentrified,

demolished or refurbished.  Maybe it was just being repainted.  Anyway, the last time I saw it, it looked it was like this:

You’ll notice that the word “monkey” has disappeared from the name. And I guess that stucco is still a kind blue, but it doesn’t yell “blue” the way it once did.  Isn’t it aquamarine, or maybe turquoise?  The Case of the Absent Monkey?  Well, maybe there is something noir-sounding about that after all.

Catherine Corman's website is right here: http://www.catherine-corman.com

WALK, HE SAID

Understandably, there isn’t a huge amount of walking in the movie Drive, which I just watched.  Ryan Gosling (as Driver) does a certain amount of strutting, and there’s a moment when his character asks the Cary Mulligan character (Irene) “Can I walk with you?’ but all they do is stroll along a corridor in their apartment building. This is not much of a movie for fans of pedestrianism.

But what really intrigued me about the movie were opening words, Driver’s voice over, “There's a hundred-thousand streets in this city. You don't need to know the route. You give me a time and a place, I give you a five minute window. Anything happens in that five minutes and I'm yours. No matter what. Anything happens a minute either side of that and you're on your own. Do you understand?’

Leaving aside the question of whether this actually makes any sense, either inside or outside the movie, I’m still curious about the notion that “this city” (and it’s definitely Los Angeles that we’re in), has 100,000 streets.  It seems a ridiculously high and inaccurate number, but trying to find out how many streets there are in LA is surprisingly tricky.

It’s not so hard to find out how many miles of road there are: 6,500 in the city of Los Angeles, 20,000 in L.A. County: both those figures exclude freeways. Clearly there’s not much correlation between number of miles and number of streets.  The longest street in Los Angeles is Sepulveda Boulevard - 26.4 miles in the city, and the shortest street is Powers Place, 
which according to sources runs for just 13 feet, in downtown, close to Pico Boulevard, but looking at in on Google Streetview it hardly seems to exist at all.

 I found all this info online, so don’t shoot me if it’s not gospel.   And in any case it doesn’t answer the question of how many streets there are in LA.  So I went  to my Thomas Guide, Los Angeles County, and turned to the street index at the back.  Not having an intern, I haven’t got a count of every one.  But the index runs to about 100 pages and each page has about 400 street names, which makes (very roughly) 40,000 streets, which is again way, way below The Driver’s estimate, and again this is county rather than city.

6,500 miles is certainly walkable, given enough time, endurance and a willingness to go places where you’re not very welcome, and the figure is obviously of interest to a man who wrote Bleeding London, a novel and now a photo project about walking every street in London.  Current estimates for London (ie the number of entries in the standard A to Z) are for 70,000 streets which let’s face it is plenty.

“The Knowledge” as required by drivers of London black cabs involves knowing 320 routes along 25,000 streets within a six mile radius of Charing Cross, but a six mile radius from Charing Cross really doesn’t take you very far.

It must all have been easier for Patrick Hamilton’s author of “20,000 Streets Under the Sky” – a trilogy written between 1929 and 1934, when London was very considerably smaller.   It made for a great British TV mini-series. Hamilton and his characters were walkers.  The hero is infatuated with a prostitute, and what he wants above all is to go walking with her.

“He informed himself that he was not insanely anxious to get her on this walk because he was in any way in love with her. It was simply because he had to find out whether he was or not – to see where he was.”  

Lost, I think, is the simple answer.

NOW I DON'T WANT TO COME ON ALL ZEN OR ANYTHING ...

… but it seems to me that if you come to a fork in the road and one path says “Spiritual Walk This Way,”  (or even "Spirtual") you really do have to choose the other path.