Installment # 1,
June 1999, New York
On the Origin of The Anita Pallenberg Story
  |
I. The Central Organizing Principles for The Anita Pallenberg Story
In the development of The Anita Pallenberg Story,a precise discussion for which began in New York in January 1998, as Leslie Singer and I were completing the fine cut on my art history video, Not For Sale: Feminism and Art in the USA during the 1970s, some general themes emerged for us, concerns that we planned to incorporate into the film, all of which involve the relationship of Rock and Roll to Fine Art, the role of the artist in contemporary European and American cultures, and the way we live now.
1. Rock and Roll. The hopes and promises of the 1960s. The Rolling Stones.
What happened to the music of resistance, built on the legacy of the blues?
Rock and roll in general, and the Rolling Stones in particular, began on
terms quite different from what they became. How did bands such as the Rolling
Stones begin with a position of political resistance and end with a desire
to play cricket?
Like other white male rockers in the late 1960s, the Stones - especially
in the personae created by Mick Jagger played with the image of masculine
privilege. The long hair, lipstick and eye make-up, frilly clothes, hip
swaggers, pseudo and actual gay male sexuality (Jagger and Bowie), for a
moment challenged the imagined and real position of white maleness. But
this androgynous promise, like that of political revolution, was short-lived.
2. The aesthetic relationship between fine art and popular culture, especially Rock and Roll.
The break down between high art and popular culture is one of the most significant legacies of Modernism. Although the boundaries of art are being continually policed by museum directors, curators, and the editors of October magazine, many of us have already accepted that art is not a formalist construct: that its existence is not dictated by the medium or context within which it is rendered manifest or exhibited. Indeed, in 1999, it seems especially relevant to remind my colleagues in criticism that art and interior decorating are not synonymous and that Rock and Roll is an art form. Elvis Presley was an artist. Joni Mitchell is a great poet. We want to pay homage to the Rock and Roll legacy: even as we want to critique it.
3. Lesbianism as subtext become main text.
As Rock and Roll introduced sexually explicit lyrics and sexually suggestive
dance movements in mainstream white culture, it did so while remaining within
the dominant sexual convention of heterosexuality. Although homosexuality
was a sexual taboo engaged by some of the more experimental and artistic
male rockers, such as Iggy Pop, Lou Reed, David Bowie, and even Mick Jagger,
all of them remained committed to heterosexuality. Other experimental male
rockers, such as the New York Dolls, dressed in women's clothes, donned
make-up and kept their girlfriends (and their heterosexual identities)
always in public view.
Since the general position of women in Rock and Roll has been and remains
abject, the image of female sexuality represented within the first generation
of Rock is one of siren and slut. Even thirty years after, the female Rock
personae constructed during the '60s remains the same: Madonna and Courtney
Love have simply taken their groupie-like slut postures to the bank, thanks
to '70s feminism.
In the extensive literature on the Stones, woven in between the tales of
male sexual conquest that constitute the biographic celebrations of Mick,
Keith, and Brian, one encounters repeated references to lesbians and lesbianism.
Supposedly Angie Bowie was kicked out of college for it; Marianne Faithful
did it all the time; Keith caught Anita Pallenberg doing it more than once;
and Jerry Hall left a handwritten note on a napkin in a London club offering
to do 'it' for Mick if that's what he wanted. Of Brian Jones, it has been
written: "Brian was into orgies, lesbians and sadomasochism, while
Jagger lived his prim, prissy, bourgeois life.....".
In the dick-heavy annuls of Rock and Roll, lesbianism is a constant thread
or should I say threat? that runs through the annuals. Since
the main Stones Brian, Mick and Keith are so interested in lesbians,
we decided to let them be in art what life has denied them. In The Anita
Pallenberg Story, Brian, Mick and Keith are played by lesbians. (Although,
admittedly, I play Mick as a drag queen, having borrowed this interpretation
from Tim Curry's brilliant parody of Jagger featured in the classic Rocky
Horror Picture Show.)
4. The promotion of the 'gallery art star' and the structural similarities
between the commodification of the rock star and the art star.
We are interested in illustrating the parallels, on the commercial level,
between the fine art system and the music industry. Of course, the primary
target market for fine art is a small, elite audience (art collectors),
and the primary audience for pop music is a mass, youth audience (young
people in capitalist countries with money to spend on entertainment). Still,
art dealers are like band managers: the promotion of their talent/product
is necessary to its commercial success. They have to live for reviews
and for sales.
In the 1990s, with the expanded popularization of fine art as entertainment,
witnessed by the burgeoning growth of new museums devoted to contemporary
art throughout Europe and the United States, the promotion of the 'art star'
seems to have reached new proportions. During the 1990s, this has been most
obvious in the British scene, in the successful internal promotion and export
of the YBAs (Young British Artists). From a New York perspective, the 1990s
YBA phenomenon in fact reproduces the kind of art star promotion that occurred
in New York during the 1980s: indeed, Damien Hirst and Damien Turk are as
much like Jeff Koons as he himself is. Self promoters, money hungry cads:
cultural producers working more from a position of kitsch than art. Wealth,
celebrity, fame and commercial success have little or nothing to do with
Art. We want to parody this misunderstanding. The Rolling Stones are a rich
cultural icon within which to explore this: for they seem to have been always
reaching toward art, and then falling down into commerce. And like our 90s
gallery art stars: when they are not simply falling down from drugs and
alcohol.
5. Rock and Roll as an extension of white male cultural imperialism.
Our other interest in The Stones concerns their specifically white male
British position within the historical context of the 1960s. If they were
not white, not male, not English I suggest that they would not have
existed. Or rather, they would not and could not have become the phenomena
they did. By saying this, I do not mean to suggest that Mick Jagger didn't
work his ass off: he did. Or that the Stones are not their own amazing thing:
they are. The incredible personal attributes and accomplishments of the
Stones especially of Brian, Mick and Keith do not in and of
themselves refute the fact that oppressive assumptions that over-invest
and over-value whiteness and maleness, to the exclusion of nonwhites and
women, were operative in allowing the Stones and the other all-white-man-bands
of the 1960s to find mainstream commercial success.
The early 'work' of the Stones existed exclusively of cover renditions of
songs written and previously released by African American musicians coming
out of the Rhythm and Blues tradition. Mick, Brian and Keith artistically
met on R & B. They titled and modeled themselves on R & B. And they rose
to fame and fortune performing R & B for white audiences, first in Britain,
then in the United States and Europe.
The story of the chance encounter of young Mick and Keith, re-meeting after
years of separation, at the Dartford, Kent train station in late October
1961 as Mick was on his way to the London School of Economics and Keith
to Sidcup Art College, is one of the most touching tales of Rock and Roll
legend.
Mick was carrying an armful of vinyl: Muddy Waters, Chuck Berry, and other
R & B discs he had mail-ordered from Chess Records, Chicago. Keith immediately
joined Mick's house band: he wanted to play the blues too. Within the next
six months, they met Brian Jones, and soon joined musical forces with him.
In July 1962, Mick, Brian (who had temporarily renamed himself 'Elmo Lewis'),
and Keith played their first gig as the "Rolling Stones". The
name, conferred by Brian Jones and originally spelled as "Rollin' Stones",
is taken from a line in the Muddy Waters song, "Mannish Boy"
the spelling from the Muddy Waters song "Rollin' Stone Blues."
Of course, playing other people's music: there is nothing inherently 'wrong'
in that. Someone is performing Mozart to a paying crowd somewhere right
now. What is politically significant here, however, is that racism is and
was necessary in order for the Stones to be enabled to commercially top
the musicians who 'gave' them the music. In the United States the
biggest market audience for the Stones and the European as well as
the British communities, the audiences for popular music and mass entertainment
(such as television) is still, in 1999, divided along racial lines. Although
there is 'crossover', that is, Black culture that finds a white audience,
a fundamental division still exists. This division was even more pronounced
in the 1960s; in fact, it was the central promotional basis and organizing
principal for Motown Records, the most successful Black record Label that
emerged in the United States during that decade. Because he thought he had
a chance with The Supremes, Berry Gordy instructed 'his girls' on how to
walk, talk, move and sing to appear 'white' or at least, 'more white.'
In subsequent decades, Diana Ross and Michael Jackson have continued their
Motown education into whiteness beyond mannerisms and dress with medical
surgery.
The Rolling Stones could stay 'Black': that is, perform sexually explicit
songs, with Mick engaged in sexually explicit moves, because they aren't
Black. If one reviews the audiences for the early public performances of
the Stones, the level of group hysteria performed by the young females (who
made up the majority of their earliest fans) one can't help but accept that
the sexual transfer actualized between the fans and the performers (the
main heartthrobs were Mick and Brian) is dependent on racism and sexism
for both its possibility and its actuality. That is, the mass desire expressed
by the white girls could only find its object in white men. Rock and Roll
as a genre is notable for the introduction of explicit sexual content into
white music culture ("They couldn't really call it 'fuck and roll'
now could they?"). This 'introduction' was borrowed from African American
music culture from Soul, Rhythm & Blues, and Funk. It was also navigated
according to the parameters of sexual desire already established in white
society: white heterosexuality with men as predators and women as prey.
If the Black musicians who gave the Stones the music weren't right now living
in low-rent conditions, driving beat-up Chevrolets or dead that is,
if the creators of R & B had received financial and cultural recognition
commensurate with their artistic contributions, then the question of white
male music's commercial success wouldn't be a political issue. Of course,
it's not Mick Jagger's fault that Muddy Waters never got paid properly,
is it?
It is the slippage between the dominant racist, sexist and heterosexist
assumptions of Euro-American cultures, as played out in Rock and Roll in
general and The Rolling Stones in particular, that is most interesting to
us. For the Stones not only appropriated and capitalized on African American
music, they also celebrated it.
When, in the script for The Anita Pallenberg Story, Mick Jagger informs
a journalist from Rolling Stone magazine that "We brought R
& B to London", he is not speaking falsely. On the cultural level,
the Stones have always been publicly grateful to their R & B roots; and
have, throughout their long career, set up opportunities to publicly perform
with the Black American musicians whose work influenced and 'made' them.
The hegemonic dynamics that play politically and historically within the
individual narratives of cultural producers, whether they be Rock and Roll
or art stars, are one network of concerns with which we approach the Rolling
Stones. What kind of cultural reciprocity is possible between artists who
co-exist in unequal societies segregated according to race and gender?
6. The debased position of women: in Rock and Roll, in Art, in Life--in the 1960s and in the 1990s.
The relationship of women to rock and roll and fine art informs perhaps
the central conceit of The Anita Pallenberg Story. It is obvious that the
only way for a women to 'be with the band' during the 1960s was to be fucked
by the band. Why was Rock and Roll, in the words of the Stone's drug dealer
comme historian, Tony Sanchez: "one of the last bastions of total male
chauvinism"? Why were so many women so willing to accept their designated
roles as passive sluts and what did this level of accommodating to
the power structure achieve for those women?
Anita Pallenberg was the main groupie of the Rolling Stones during their
heyday. At various times, she was sexually involved with the band's central
triumvirate: Brian, Keith, and Mick. Anita Pallenberg met Brian Jones backstage
in Munich in 1966: she offered him a joint and some sex. He took her to
London. When she had to get away from Brian about two years later
he was heavily drugged most of his last years and beat the shit out of her,
putting her in the hospital more than once she left him for Keith.
Anita and Keith shared heroin, got married, and produced two children together.
During the shooting of Donald Cammell and Nick Roeg's film Performance,
1970, Anita and Mick got together but it was a temporary liaison,
and Anita stayed with Keith.
During her heyday "with the band," Anita Pallenberg once described
herself to a rock reporter as: "The Sixth Rolling Stone." Like
Anita, Marianne Faithful was sexually involved with all three of the band's
main men. Mick, Keith and Brian traded a few other women among them
not only Marianne and Anita. The biggest '60s dick rock bands often had
private harems, as well as an international network of sexual service providers
commonly referred to as "groupies."
In addition to functioning as sexual consorts to the band, Marianne and
Anita were intellectual, stylistic and musical confidants to the Stones.
Both women were better educated and more cultured than the English blokes.
Both women were "European." Although neither of the women seems
to have functioned as the kind of style-manufacturer that Angie Bowie was
for Bowie (with the Stones, that role was played by their early manager
Andrew Loog Oldham), whatever creative and practical roles in the production
of Stones music and mythology Marianne and Anita played during their years
inside the band's entourage was never credited or formally acknowledged.
In this sense, they both played the role of 'woman': man's sexual and emotional
helper. Marianne Faithful had her own singing career; but being with Mick
didn't advance her professionally. Indeed, while the Stones got rich and
famous from the publicity they received for 'being bad,' Marianne Faithfull's
experiments with drugs and sex brought her vilification (and a steep personal
descent) rather than reward. (There never seems to have even been a thought,
much less a discussion that she or anyone else female was ever considered,
even for a moment, eligible to be a Stone). There is one well-known instance
of artistic collaboration between Faithfull and her Stones boyfriends: she
wrote "Sister Morphine," which the Stones recorded. But the song
was attributed, like most of the band's music, to "Jagger and Richards."
(Later, when Faithful got off heroin and sought the attribution, Mick and
Keith formally corrected the error.)
The lyrics of many Stones songs - since the period when Mick and Keith,
prompted by Andrew Loog Oldham, began to write their own lyrics and music
- are explicitly sexist. During the first years of the 1970s, when the women's
liberation movement emerged as a mass movement in the United States, the
Stones were frequently singled out as 'especially misogynist' by feminist
activists, theorists, and artists. In her 1976 groundbreaking book on rape,
Against Our Will, American feminist Susan Brownmiller critiques the
celebration of male sexualized violence against women in the Stone's hit
song, "Gimme Shelter." In Los Angeles, during the late 1970s,
the record industry in general and the Stones in particular, were singled
out in numerous feminist activist protests against the entertainment industry's
perpetration of images of male violence against women.
During the period the Stones were recording "Under My Thumb,"
Brian was beating
Anita Pallenberg up hard enough to land her in the hospital. The Stones
lyrics, in that song and others, were never at a far remove from how they
interacted with women in their personal and professional lives: women, for
the Stones and other male rockers, were objects. Along with hitting the
top of the charts and getting a lot of money, having increased sexual access
to as many young and attractive women as possible was an aim and a symbol
of accomplishment for men involved with Rock and Roll.
Groupies, a term similar to prostitute as one of the few occupational nouns
connotative of female practitioners, were so prevalent a feature during
the heyday of Rock and Roll that they constituted a veritable subculture,
complete with identifiable wardrobes, accessories, nicknames, geographical
turfs - and yes, even a fame structure. There were women in the Los Angeles
area during the late 1960s such as Butter Queen, Suzie Creamcheese, the
Plaster Casters and others who could be said to be 'professional groupies'
- except that professional usually implies financial remuneration for services
rendered, and these women whored for free (although some did manage to advance
their careers to wife-of-a famous-rocker status, for which they were eligible
to receive the dignified title "Mrs."). The 'professional groupies,'
those that studied and worked the Rock tour circuit - as opposed to the
"amateur groupies", who maybe just showed up once or twice backstage
somewhere or only had one Rocker boyfriend at a time - went after Rockers
the way big game hunters go after the hunt with a fundamental difference:
the groupies thought they were on the hunt, but everybody knew the groupies
were the hunt.
On the cultural level, the Stones, like other white male singers and bands
during the first decade of rock, often appropriated 'female' performative
models, including those derived from dance, vocal interpretation, dress
and make-up. How should we understand these appropriations of 'the female'?
7. The new level of internationalism, in art and culture.
Many of us involved in fine art practice are dependent on an international
network now - especially between New York City and Europe - for distribution,
audience, discourse and commercial remuneration. Just as the rock stars
have to tour, so do we. The airplane, the adoption of English as international-speak,
and the new communications technologies (from the fax to the Web), have
situated the post-68 generation in closer and more immediate international
proximity than artists of previous generations functioned. When conceptualizing
The Anita Pallenberg Story, we thought often of the myth of Warhol's
Factory. How the Factory no longer exists (and what a torture chamber it
really was), but still, how the legend lives seductively on. And how Warhol,
especially in his non-gallery-based activities - his films, his fresh eye,
his magazine, his perpetual readiness for art -offered so many open windows
for subsequent artists to look through (or fall out of). In thinking of
'backstage' with the Rolling Stones, circa 1968, we were also thinking of
the first years of the Factory. But rather than feature soiled socialites,
street hustlers and heroin addicts, we wanted to cast artists, dealers,
critics and other players on the fine art scene who are part of my own art
scene, people I know and have worked, people who are laboring in the same
Factory of Contemporary Art that I work in.
The cast members filmed during the New York City shootings, from March to
June, 1999 are as follows:
Cosima von Bonin as Anita Pallenberg
Nicole Eisenman as Keith Richards
Laura Cottingham as Mick Jagger and Brian Jones
Lucas Michael as Francois de Menil
Chuck Nanney as Kenneth Anger
Steven Parrino as a Hell's Angel
Amy O'Neill as Biker Girl
Ghada Amer as a Rolling Stone reporter
Rainer Ganahl as a Vogue photographer
Stephanie Theobald as Julie Burchill
Gavin Brown as Andrew Oldham, the band's manager
Colin de Land as Robert Fraser, the Soho art dealer
Aaron Cobbett as Aaron, the band's make-up artist
Clarissa Dalrymple as Tony Sanchez, the band's drug dealer
Yvonne Force, John Yau and others as themselves
The crew for these shoots included Leslie Singer and Laura Parnes on Camera;
Quinn K. Pawlan on Lights; Kenneth Okiishi on Sound; and Hair and Make-up
by Aaron Cobbett, with James Vincent assisting. Editing on the rough cut
and the trailer were done in San Antonio, Texas in June, with Alison White
at Railyard Productions.
8. The type of life, labor and experiences that result from this kind of
contemporary art internationalism - perpetual travel, staying in strange
rooms in foreign places, developing long term freindships and working relationships
on jet lag and stimulates such as coffee, cigarettes and alcohol - have
also informed The Anita Pallenberg Story.
During the past ten years I have often described my way of life and work
as being similar to that of a tap dancing bear or an itinerant preacher:
being shipped around from venue to venue to perform. While gallery artists
show up to a new destination to install and attend an opening, since I am
a critic, I show up to talk. Although to compare making lectures and sitting
on panel discussions to performing as a rock star is a bit laughable, there
are nonetheless some structural and emotional similarities. There are of
course the bad contracts, the bad food, the bad technical facilities, the
bad flight, the bad audience, the bad hotels. Then again, on a more positive
note: there are the groupies. But after one has experienced the transformation
of more than one interesting invitation into more than a few hellish real
situations - what Sue Williams once described to me as 'the free nightmares'
- one invariably loses the illusion that a trip to a new and different foreign
city is automatically or necessarily guaranteed to be a wonderful experience.
Indeed, sometimes they invite you to kill you - and it's not always possible
to figure out the difference between your friends and their opposites. The
popular American press is fond of printing articles making fun of entertainers
and performers who demand cases of Evian and bags of M & M candies back
stage as lines in their contracts, as if these requests are the height of
egoistic narcissism. But I can assure you that if you have ever had the
experience of being expected to perform before an audience, on jetlag (having
come to the auditorium straight from an unpleasant international flight),
and instead of being offered a glass of water or a chair your sponsoring
hosts inform you of their latest incompetence and reveal the additional
labor they hope to extract from you along with their insincere apologies
for the inadequate food and shelter they have procured for you - you might
need a case of Evian water and a bag of M & Ms too. The art lecture tour
and the rock and roll tour are similar configurations of travel, performance
- and hoping for the best once one has said yes. Because of course: the
show must go on.
Notes on the Process, between the Co-Directors
Leslie Singer and I first met in June 1994, when she moved from San Francisco
to New York. We met by chance at a book party for Eileen Myles at Printed
Matter, for Eileen's short story collection Chelsea Girls, which
features a story titled "Leslie" (which is about Leslie Singer)
and a drawing by Nicole Eisenman on the cover. In Los Angeles the month
before I had been given a copy of Leslie Singer's latest video, Taking
Back the Dolls,1994, and was so impressed that I wanted her to work
with me on the video of the seventies Feminist Art Movement I was working
on. That video, at the time untitled and hardly begun, became Not For
Sale: Feminism and Art in the USA during the 1970s.
In early 1998, as we were completing the fine cut on Not For Sale,
I wanted to develop a new feature-length video, one that aimed to combine
Leslie's aesthetics with mine, that synthesized the kind of historical and
political impetus of Not For Sale (my work) with the camp, parodic,
pop cultural basis of Taking Back the Dolls(hers).
Singer's Taking Back the Dolls is a remake of the 1967 Hollywood
film based on Jacqueline Susann's best selling trash novel,Valley of
the Dolls. Shot in Pixelvision, the Leslie's Dolls features amateur
cast drawn from her artistic community of film and video makers and other
artists in San Francisco. Another precedent for The Anita Pallenberg
Story is certainly Cecilia Dougherty's Grapefruit, 1988, a feature-length
art video which features San Francisco lesbians playing the Beatles (including
a really good performance by Suzie Bright as John Lennon.)
These two popular culture lesbian-remake videos have directly informed our
conceptual starting point for The Anita Pallenberg Story, although,
typically, my memories of the initial conversations regarding what kind
of video we would make to follow Not For Sale differ somewhat significantly
from those of Leslie Singer. I remember our discussions regarding combining
the aesthetic differences between us and what we could make that would be
interesting about the international fine art scene of the 1990s. I remember
talking about history and politics, and wanting to stay in the counter culture
past (following up Not For Sale, but with a different kind of cultural recuperation
of the American counter culture period).
Leslie and I come out of different cultural traditions and somewhat contradictory
sensibilities. In terms of cinema we are in agreement about Chantal Akerman,
Rainer Werner Fassbinder and Douglas Sirk. (Although I insist Sirk is classic
and she calls him melodrama.) And I hold more to 19th-century French literature,
Jean- Luc Godard, Frankfurt School Theory and Ingmar Bergman. And she to
popular American television, Andy Warhol, Rock and Roll and Kenneth Anger.
With The Anita Pallenberg Story, some of these influences went directly
into the concept, the script and the storyboards. Fassbinder's Beware
the Holy Whore, 1970 (itself a parable on artistic production) and The
Bitter Tears of Petra von Kant,1972, are directly referenced in our
soundtrack and the staging of the sets. Godard found his way to the Stones
before we did; his One Plus One: Sympathy for the Devil, 1970, continues
to inspire us and remind us that we aren't the only ones who find the seeds
of political rebellion in the Stones of the late 1960s. Kenneth Anger 'appears'
in our film, as played by artist Chuck Nanney. Anger comes backstage to
see his friends. (Like so much of our script, a 'real life' incident, modeled
on the Stones's actual friendship with Anger, whom they met through their
art dealer friend Robert Fraser, who is played by Colin de Land in The
Anita Pallenberg Story.) Andy Warhol - who Anita Pallenberg wants to
meet at Max's Kansas City is all over our script, which is as indebted
to
Samuel Beckett's Waiting for Godot as to anything prior.
This all being true, Leslie Singer claims that the real deciding factor
in focusing on Anita Pallenberg and The Stones, as opposed to another popular
cultural navigation from circa 1968, is that I said we should make a video
that would feature Cosima von Bonin's tits. I don't of course remember this
at all. (And there are currently no tits, either Cosima's or anyone else's,
in The Anita Pallenberg Story.) But certainly there would be no Anita
Pallenberg without Cosima von Bonin; and if she had refused our invitation
to be the star of our next project, we would have had to abandon the film
and develop another concept, as there is no one else anywhere on the international
art scene, excepting Miss von Bonin of Köln, Germany, who we could
have given the title role of The Anita Pallenberg Story.
Production stills for The Anita Pallenberg Story
Photographs by Aaron Cobbet, Laura Cottingham, Lucas MIchael, and Rainer
Ganahl
Set 1:
Laura Cottingham as Mick Jagger rehearsing "Play with Fire." Laura Parnes on camera.
Selected Bibliography on The Anita Pallenberg Story
Bill Landis, Anger: The Unauthorized Biography of Kenneth Anger (New
York: Harper Collins, 1995).
Tony Sanchez, Up and Down with the Rolling Stones (New York: Da Capo,
1996). Originally published: New York: William Morrow, 1979.
Laura Jackson, Heart of Stone: The Unauthorized Life of Mick Jagger
(London: Smith Gryphon, 1997).
Victor Bockris, Keith Richards (New York: Da Capo, 1998). Originally
Published: New York: Poseidon Press, 1992.
Anthony Scaduto, Mick Jagger (St. Albans, Great Britain: Mayflower,
1975). First Published: London: W.H. Allen, 1974.
David Dalton, The Rolling Stones (London: W.H.Allen, 1975).
David Dalton, Rolling Stones In Their Own Words (London: Book Sales,
1980).
David Dalton, The Rolling Stones: The First Twenty Five years (London:
Thames and Hudson, 1981).
J Marks, Mick Jagger (London: Sphere, 1973).
Jean Cocteau, Beauty and the Beast: Diary of a Film; translated by
Ronald Duncan (New York: Dover, 1972). First Published, in French (Paris:
J.B. Janin, 1947).
Samuel Beckett, Waiting for Godot:, translated from the original
French text by the author (New York: Grove Press, 1954).
Eileen Myles, Chelsea Girls, Black Sparrow Press, Santa Rosa, CA,
1994.
Marianne Faithful with David Dalton, Faithful: An Autobiography (New
York: Little Brown, 1994).
Christopher Sandford, Mick Jagger (London: Cassell, 1993).
Andy Warhol, The Andy Warhol Diaries, edited by Pat Hackett (New
York: Warner, 1989).
James Karnback and Carol Bernson, It's Only Rock 'n' Roll: The Ultimate
Guide to the Rolling Stones (New York: Facts on File, 1997).