The Cultural Gutter

beyond good and bad, there is awesome

"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." -- Oscar Wilde


Guy Leshinski
Posted November 18, 2004

The monocle makes the man.“A good salesperson has to be a psychologist,” Mel Rapp says, sitting at the back of his College Street optical shop, legs crossed alertly, riding a tangent in his distant, foggy voice. “I use all my experiences to try to inform the attitudes and feelings — the psychology — behind the frames people wear.”

His store, Rapp Optical, celebrates its 20th anniversary this month. The place smells like an antiquarian bookshop. Its narrow entrance is flanked by glass cases that flaunt a dizzying collection of frames — the slender and the massive, the impractical and the practically invisible — that sell at peak rates to the city’s trendsetters. Rapp created many of the pieces himself. He’s an optician, an artisan, a kind of optical philosopher, and he’s currently writing a book on “the psychology of eyewear” pulled from his 30 years in the field. One of its sources: comic books.

Glasses, Rapp argues, have a language of allusion all their own. Take, for instance, the round frames of Tintin‘s Professor Calculus. “Round frames are always, I think, suggestive of intelligence,” Rapp says, a link established by the thinkers who’ve worn them — Frank Lloyd Wright, Sigmund Freud, Gandhi — and the frames’ clever mimicry of our natural contours. “The roundness of the frame is parallel to the roundness of the eyeball.” But there’s another association: villainy. “If you look at documented, archival ghetto pictures of Jews in the 1930s, you will see a lot of Hasidic scholars wearing perfectly round frames,” says Rapp. Through the lens of anti-Semitic propaganda, their specs became malignant. “It depends what you do with that shape. There’s a scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark in which a Nazi is wearing small, round metal frames. He’s got this laugh with a mixture of evil, and he’s wearing the uniform, but it’s the glasses that give credibility to his face as an evil monster. Not to put the round frame in the category of good or evil; it’s just a device that is used. These are the stereotypes they’re playing on.”

Glasses were a blessing to early caricaturists eager to impale their subjects. “If you had a strong prescription, you’d have a thick lens. Imagine big, round lenses, maybe two and a half inches in diameter, surrounded by a thick wooden frame. You put that in front of your face and you become a caricature. Or look at drawings from the early 20th century. People were wearing, not just pince-nez, but monocles. The German boxer Max Schmeling — his manager wore this thick black monocle, either held by the muscle or fit into the orbit of the eye. That is caricature.” The monocle has itself come to define a certain maniacal elegance through characters like the Penguin.
Maniacal monocle.

Just as symbolic are the lenses themselves. On this point Rapp is unequivocal: “The world,” he says, “is divided into minus lenses and plus lenses.” A minus lens, which treats myopia (nearsightedness), makes the eye look smaller, “a minification of the eye itself that leads to a distortion,” he explains. “So the viewer will make the assumption that this character is bad.” A plus lens, the kind worn by R. Crumb, does the opposite. “When you wear a plus lens, it magnifies the eye. Every movement of the eyeball becomes exaggerated, and there’s a liquidness to the lens itself. When you look at this person, you see a lot of detail around the eyes, and there’s something disconcerting about that.” The effect, he says, shows in their work. “It’s curious that sometimes Crumb will not draw his eyeballs; in the caricature of the face, all you can see is the frame. What is he saying? Is he saying the lenses are so thick that somebody outside can’t see his eyes because of so much distortion? Or maybe he’s saying that it’s a barrier between the drawn character and the world. Who knows, if he was nearsighted, if he would still be the same Robert Crumb.”

No comic figure, however, is more closely tied to a pair of glasses than Clark Kent. It’s a subject Rapp knows well. “If you can believe this,” he starts, “I’ve been thinking about Clark Kent for about 10 years.” Rapp read Superman comics as a kid, and he still does, though these days he mines the material for what it reveals about his customers. “Clark Kent uses his glasses to conceal his true identity. He has a secret side to himself, and the glasses have to be large enough to make him look smaller. He doesn’t need the glasses to improve his vision. He just uses them as a mask; they conceal his strength.” This echoes the reasoning of some of Rapp’s more distinguished clientele. “I’ve had some of the most famous people in the world in this store. I had a famous, Academy Award-winning actor here, and the glasses he bought were large. He needed to not be recognized.

“It’s an issue of identity,” says Rapp. An identity drawn, in part, by cartoonists.


Leave a Reply

  • Support The Gutter

  • The Book!

  • Of Note Elsewhere

    At Bleeding Cool, Cap Blackard writes about the contested homeworld of Howard the Duck. “If you’ve seen the much maligned Howard the Duck film or read any Howard the Duck stories published since 1979, you’re probably familiar with the concept of Duckworld. You know, an alternate Earth where everyone is ducks and everything is duck-themed: Ducktor Strange, Bloomingducks, etc, etc. Sounds like a recipe for a finite barrel of bad jokes, right? It is, and it’s also not Howard’s real point of origin. During his landmark initial run, Howard’s creator Steve Gerber had the down-and-out duck hailing from a world of talking animals, but all that changed when Gerber was kicked off the book and Disney flashed a lawsuit. Now, after decades of backstory fumbling, Mark Waid has reinstated Howard’s point of origin in a one-shot issue of S.H.I.E.L.D.” (Thanks, Mark!)


    At The Village Voice, Jackson Connor writes about the making of The Warriors. Amid the refurbished boardwalk and laughter of children, it’s easy to forget that Coney Island was once a place where tourists did not venture. For much of the latter half of the twentieth century, street gangs dominated this neighborhood. They ran rampant through the area’s neglected housing projects, tearing along Surf and Neptune avenues toward West 8th Street. Those gangs, or gangs like them, and that incarnation of Coney Island would form the backbone of author Sol Yurick’s 1965 debut novel, The Warriors, about the young members of a street gang. More than a decade after the novel’s publication it would be optioned and, eventually, turned into a major motion picture of the same name.” (via @pulpcurry)


    Edith Garrud taught Suffragettes jiu-jitsu and formed Emmeline Pankhurst’s Bodyguard. “The first connection between the suffragettes and jiu-jitsu was made at a WSPU meeting. Garrud and her husband William, who ran a martial arts school in London’s Golden Square together, had been booked to attend. But William was ill, so she went alone. ‘Edith normally did the demonstrating, while William did the speaking,’ says Tony Wolf, writer of Suffrajitsu, a trilogy of graphic novels about this aspect of the suffragette movement. ‘But the story goes that the WSPU’s leader, Emmeline Pankhurst, encouraged Edith to do the talking for once, which she did.'”


    At Playboy, Jake Rossen writes about the story behind the filming and the restoration of Manos: The Hands of Fate. “For a long time no one wanted to see it unless it was accompanied by MST3K’s taunts. Then, in 2011, a collector of film prints uncovered the original negative of Manos and embarked on an inexplicable project to restore the film with all the white-glove attention archivists give to Hollywood classics. His efforts would incur the wrath of a mysterious man with a fake New Zealand accent named Rupert, as well as Joe Warren, Hal Warren’s embittered son, who intends to preserve the Manos legacy at all costs.” (Thanks, Ed!)


    At Die, Danger, Die, Die, Kill!, Todd reviews the two part Ghanian director Ninja’s film, 2016. “2016 is a movie that I am obligated to review by virtue of my having long ago joined the internet chorus of people trumpeting on about its insane trailer—and this despite the fact that all of you with any interest in seeing it have most likely tracked it down already. In that case, you already know that it is essentially a no-budget remake of Independence Day set in the suburbs of Ghana. And if that sounds like a massive over-reach to you, you obviously know very little about Ghanaian action cinema, and even less about the films of maverick multi-hyphenate Ninja.”

    Read about part one, here, and part two, here.


    Look, it’s the trailer for “The Abominable Snowman” a new episode of classic Thunderbirds. Huffington Post UK has more: “It’s exactly half a century since we heard the ominous tones of voice actor Peter Dyneley bringing us the Thunderbirds intro ‘5 -4 – 3 – 2 -1 Thunderbirds are go’, and to celebrate, the team are producing three brand new original episodes, based on audio-only recordings made in 1966, which means fans will get to enjoy the original voices, with some 21st century gadgetry thrown in on screen.” (Thanks, Todd!)


  • Spilling into Twitter

  • Obsessive?

    Then you might be interested in knowing you can subscribe to our RSS feed, find us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter or Tumblr.


  • Weekly Notifications

  • What We’re Talking About

  • Thanks To

    No Media Kings hosts this site, and Wordpress autoconstructs it.

  • %d bloggers like this: