Falcon Is A Fake Poem by gershon hepner

Though you know the falcon is a fake
the movie’s still a lot of fun to watch.
Unlike the Maltese falcon, a mistake
about important matters like the Scotch
that you enjoy as single malt from Islay
although it’s a cheap blended Scotch from Perth,
amuses every devious beguiler,
but should teach you that sometimes the real worth
of what you like comes from the name. A rose
would smell less sweet if, like the falcon, it
were fake, and even lovers who suppose
the kisses they receive aren’t counterfeit––
as they so often are, but never mind! ––
know making love is like rewatching what
they’ve seen before, and never have believed.
Don’t ask for kisses or a single shot
of Scotch if you just hate to be deceived.

This poem is inspired by “Revisiting Coen Country for Old Men, ” by Bruce Headlam (NYT, August 31,2008) and “Fish or Fowl” by Edward Dolnick (NYT, September 2,2008) . Bruce Headlam writes:

The opening scenes of “Burn After Reading, ” inside C.I.A. headquarters, make it appear that the Coens are flirting with another genre, in this case the paranoid thrillers of the 1970s, like “Three Days of the Condor” or “The Parallax View.” Then the film takes a sharp twist into a gray zone without any apparent moral order — or at least the kind embodied in “No Country” by Carla Jean Moss or in “Fargo” in the final speech given by Marge, the policewoman played by Ms. McDormand. “No character offers that kind of perspective” in “Burn, ” Ethan says. Even Cox’s old superiors at the C.I.A. (played by J. K. Simmons and David Rasche) , who the brothers wanted to function “like a Greek chorus, ” seem bewildered by events and — like many real C.I.A. agents, one suspects — just close the file rather than dwell on how things could go so wrong. The Coens are big Hitchcock fans, and “Burn After Reading” has a MacGuffin (the device to move the plot along) , in this case Cox’s memoir. What’s striking is that this MacGuffin, unlike the suitcase in “No Country, ” is worthless. “Why in God’s name would they think that’s worth anything? ” the analyst’s wife says in the film. Ethan said the choice was deliberate: “We liked that idea. There’s nothing at the center.” It’s maybe the oddest turn, as if the audience watching “The Maltese Falcon” for the first time knew that the bird was a fake all along. But a final attempt to draw out the Coens about the meaning of “Burn After Reading” ends the interview to the evident relief of both brothers, who suddenly relax and seem ready to talk. “Hey, ” Joel said, his voice brightening, “didn’t Karl Popper go after Wittgenstein with a poker? ”

Edward Dolnick writes:
WHEN news of the great fish fraud broke recently, New York’s elite restaurateurs rushed to defend their sushi. Phony labels on the red snapper? Knock-off tuna? Not to worry. Top chefs can’t be fooled, they insisted, nor can their customers. “It is impossible to mislead people who have knowledge, ” declared Eric Ripert, the chef at Le Bernardin. Few statements could do more to gladden a con man’s heart. In the art of the con, magicians and swindlers and forgers insist, the ideal victim is not an ignoramus but an expert. Any magician would rather take on a roomful of physicists than of 5-year-olds. “When you’re certain you cannot be fooled, ” wrote the magician Teller, “you become easy to fool.” Experts make the best victims because they jump to unwarranted conclusions. The savvier they are, the quicker they jump, because they see at a glance which way a story is heading. In 2002, for instance, a French wine researcher named Frédéric Brochet gave 54 experts an array of red wines to evaluate. Some of the glasses contained white wine that Mr. Brochet had doctored to look red, by adding a tasteless, odorless additive. Not a single taster noticed the switch. “About 2 or 3 percent of people detect the white wine flavor, ” Mr. Brochet said, “but invariably they have little experience of wine culture. Connoisseurs tend to fail to do so. The more training they have, the more mistakes they make because they are influenced by the color of the wine.” For the experts, the term “red wine” carries countless associations. Each one points to further questions; each question leads them further off the trail. By contrast, the amateurs’ ignorance keeps them from exploring subtle byways. Seeing only one question — “what do you think of this wine? ” — they can’t wander far.

9/2/08