PDF Summary:Miss May Does Not Exist, by Carrie Courogen

Miss May Does Not Exist provides a poignant look into the life and creative journey of Elaine May, the pioneering female comedian known for her unwavering independence and perfectionism. The blurb gives insight into May's unconventional upbringing in the Yiddish theater—an experience that fostered her unique approach to blending reality and fiction. It explores her dynamic comedic partnership and tumultuous personal relationship with Mike Nichols, as well as the challenges she faced navigating the male-dominated entertainment industry.

May's career is portrayed as one of determination and perseverance. Despite achieving groundbreaking milestones as a writer, actor, and director, the demands for creative control clashed with studio expectations, ultimately shaping her artistic legacy. Through detailed accounts of her creative process, personal life, and professional obstacles, author Carrie Courogen reveals the complexities and boldness that defined this uncompromising artist.

(continued)... >

Other Perspectives

• Some audience members might have been silent not out of intimidation but out of respect for May's talent and the novelty of her approach to comedy.

Broadway Struggles: A Matter of Position's Collapse From Creative Differences and Sexism

May’s successful run as one half of the Nichols and May comedy duo provided her with the chance to pursue her ambitions on a larger scale. She went back to her forte: writing plays. But the author notes how her first planned Broadway production, "A Matter of Position," with Mike Nichols in the lead role, crashed and burned. Where her performance with Nichols thrived through collaboration, her playwriting could succeed only if she was in full control, free of the limitations imposed by others. This became an insurmountable challenge. A Matter of Position, a story centered on a character who isolates himself by spending all of his time in bed, resonated with those who found it funny and accessible. But to those who felt it was a veiled critique of its supposed main subject, namely Mike Nichols, it came across as an overly intellectual diatribe, as lachrymose as grim prophets lamenting a man's communication breakdown.

Although everyone involved acknowledged that the play, as a whole (and particularly its third act), needed to be shortened, they had divergent views on how to do it. May, unwilling to compromise or cut what she considered to be essential elements to the story, rejected suggestions for revisions by both the producers and the director—and more devastatingly, from Mike Nichols himself.

Context

• Mike Nichols was not only a performer but also a renowned director and producer, known for his work in both theater and film. His perspective on a project would carry significant weight, potentially leading to conflicts if his vision differed from May's.
• In comedy duos like Nichols and May, success often hinges on the chemistry and balance between partners. Each person brings unique strengths, and the dynamic can mask individual weaknesses. This synergy might not translate to solo projects where one person must handle all aspects.
• The play's humor might have been layered with satire, which can be polarizing. Some audiences appreciate this complexity, while others may find it alienating if they perceive it as mocking or overly cerebral.
• A playwright typically has a strong vision for their work, and changes suggested by others can feel like a compromise of their artistic integrity. This can be particularly challenging if the playwright believes that every part of the script is crucial to the story.
• The tension between maintaining artistic integrity and ensuring commercial success is a common struggle in the arts. May's refusal to alter her play highlights the broader debate about whether art should prioritize the creator's vision or audience reception and marketability.

First Woman to Direct Studio Films Since 1930s

By the turn of the 1970s, despite the challenges faced on A Matter of Degree, May achieved another milestone: She was signed by Paramount to direct two consecutive features—a feat no woman had accomplished since the early 1930s. But as the author notes, the success was bittersweet: Paramount's offer wasn't purely motivated by a commitment to inclusivity or by their appreciation of her skills. If money equates to power in Hollywood, the less they paid her, the weaker she was. By burdening May with the triple duties of writing, directing, and acting in the movie, they not only were incredibly cost-effective but also created a recipe for failure.

Context

• The 1930s were a period when women like Dorothy Arzner were among the few female directors in Hollywood, but their numbers dwindled significantly due to industry biases and structural barriers.
• The 1970s were a time of economic challenges for the film industry, with studios often looking to cut costs. Hiring a director to take on multiple roles, such as writing, directing, and acting, was a strategy to reduce expenses.
• The decision to hire a woman for a high-profile role could be seen as a token gesture, intended to create an appearance of progressiveness without a genuine commitment to gender equality.
• Lower pay for a director can also mean a smaller budget for the film, which can affect production quality, marketing, and distribution, potentially impacting the film's success.
• Managing the workload of three major roles can lead to physical and mental exhaustion, impacting the individual's health and the overall success of the project.
• In Hollywood, financial compensation is often linked to power and influence. By paying May less, the studio maintained control and limited her authority, reflecting broader industry practices of marginalizing women.

Criticized as "Difficult" Due to Her Demand for Creative Autonomy

Courogen notes that May was consistently labeled as "difficult" throughout her time in the movie industry. The moniker, often used to diminish and sideline women, wasn’t so much deserved as it was the inevitable byproduct of her demanding a level of creative freedom granted to her male counterparts.

May’s creative vision rarely aligned with studio objectives, which often prioritized profitability. This wasn’t malice; it was simply her nature. May herself once remarked, “Everybody says that geniuses are easy to work with, and if somebody's hard to work with, they're not a genius.” She was always willing to fight for her creative vision, refusing to compromise or cede control, even if that meant jeopardizing her position on that movie. "I don't actually enjoy filmmaking," she clarified. “Frankly, it's preferable to many alternatives.”

Context

• Being labeled as "difficult" can have significant career repercussions, including fewer job opportunities and damaged professional relationships, particularly for women in creative industries.
• Over time, there has been a growing recognition of the need for diversity and equality in creative roles within the industry, leading to more discussions about the importance of granting equal creative freedom to all filmmakers, regardless of gender.
• Her statement might indicate a personal drive to create and tell stories, suggesting that the act of creation itself was more fulfilling than the medium through which it was achieved.

Other Perspectives

• Studios have a fiduciary responsibility to their investors and shareholders to prioritize profitability, which can sometimes necessitate creative compromises.
• Refusing to compromise may result in missed opportunities to learn from others and grow as a creative professional.
• Being easy to work with can also be a trait of a genius, as collaboration and communication are valuable skills that can enhance creative processes.

Gender Bias in Film: "Mikey & Nicky," "Ishtar," and Their Consequences

Courogen traces the ways sexism and a culture of discrimination toward women in the film industry contributed to May’s professional struggles. She provides a detailed analysis of the difficulties May experienced while directing her second and third films, "Mikey and Nicky" and "Ishtar," placing them in the context of the rise and fall of second-wave feminism during the era, and pointing to the ways the films' (and by association, her) failures were used against women in Hollywood. Both movies exceeded their budgets and schedules, though not excessively, and their lack of success with critics and audiences was due to a multitude of factors.

Despite the fact that May’s films were the product of “an intensely personal style [that is] unlike any other in contemporary American cinema,” her production issues were attributed to her personality and to her gender, not to creative differences, a lack of support from the corporations footing the bill, or simply being green. “She’s a fucking maniac!,” one producer was quoted as saying to dismiss her. If a man acted that way, it would be seen as ambition; with May, it indicated poor leadership. In evaluating her films, the gender bias was evident. Where male directors such as Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola, and Stanley Kubrick enjoyed nearly unlimited creative freedom and multiple opportunities, May’s director credit served as a convenient punching bag, used time and again to dismiss the work of other aspiring female filmmakers.

Context

• Male directors often had access to established networks and mentors within the industry, providing them with guidance and opportunities that were less available to their female counterparts.
• This movement, which peaked in the 1960s and 1970s, aimed to address issues such as workplace discrimination, reproductive rights, and legal inequalities. Despite its influence, many industries, including film, were slow to change, and women like May faced significant resistance.
• Leadership qualities such as assertiveness and ambition were often viewed negatively in women, being labeled as difficult or unmanageable, whereas the same traits were praised in men.
• Directed by Elaine May, this film was a crime drama featuring John Cassavetes and Peter Falk. The production was notorious for its lengthy shooting schedule and budget overruns, partly due to May's meticulous approach and insistence on multiple takes. The film's release was delayed, and it faced distribution challenges, impacting its initial reception.
• Broader economic conditions, such as a recession or changes in consumer spending habits, might have influenced box office revenues during the films' release periods.
• The media often perpetuated stereotypes about women in leadership, influencing public perception and industry attitudes, which could have contributed to the negative framing of May's production issues.
• The dismissal of May's work had a chilling effect on aspiring female filmmakers, who faced increased skepticism and scrutiny, making it harder for them to secure funding and support for their projects.

May's Vision and Need for Control Clashed With Commercial Demands, Ending Her Directorial Career

Elaine May’s career in directing was not just hampered, but eventually collapsed by her unwavering need for control. Her hesitance to delegate what she saw as the most important elements of creation, combined with her meticulous, slow, and often meandering approach to writing and filming, clashed with the demands of making big-budget studio features that were intended both to generate buzz and excitement and to turn a profit.

Detail-Oriented: A Slower, Often Conflicting Work Style

Courogen provides multiple anecdotes about May’s demanding style and the impact it had on those who collaborated with her. Despite her brilliance, she lacked an understanding of the more practical aspects of producing work. She was unable to recall its opening night; she would spend days obsessing over which shade of white paint to use in her house and ignore the urgent demands of rewriting a scene in a movie that was filming that very day. She couldn't trust others to help with the small details because they absorbed her. Though she could quickly write a script, it could take months of painstaking edits for it to finally match the way it played out in her head. During filming and in production rooms, things weren’t much different. Whether it was rearranging the furniture or taking days to pick out the perfect rug, or re-recording the sound of a camel’s footsteps after changing the Foley sand, her perfectionist nature would always find a way to get in the way.

Perfection Struggle: Excessive Rewriting and Shooting For Truth

May was plagued by a sense of artistic self-doubt and perfectionism, causing her to endlessly rewrite and reshoot until she achieved the most truthful possible scene, often at the expense of her collaborators. Her meticulous, at times exhausting, approach to her craft is evident in each film she directed. Whether it was urging her fellow actors to relentlessly improvise on A New Leaf and The Heartbreak Kid or taking twenty-seven takes to get the perfect jump onto a moving yacht, her films couldn’t just be good, they had to be true.

Context

• Perfectionism can strain relationships with collaborators, as the drive for perfection may lead to extended working hours, repeated revisions, and a lack of compromise, potentially causing frustration among team members.
• Reshooting scenes multiple times can present technical challenges, such as maintaining continuity, managing lighting conditions, and ensuring consistent performances from actors.
• When a director is highly meticulous, it can create tension on set. Collaborators may feel frustrated by the constant changes and demands, which can affect morale and the overall working environment.
• May's insistence on improvisation was likely driven by her desire to capture the most authentic version of a scene, reflecting her commitment to truthfulness in storytelling.
• Such an approach can be challenging for actors and crew, who must maintain energy and focus through repeated takes, potentially leading to tension or fatigue on set.
• The pursuit of truth in art often involves exploring deeper human experiences and emotions. This philosophical approach can sometimes conflict with practical aspects of filmmaking, such as efficiency and teamwork.

Resisting Studio Interference: Challenging Decisions by Executives, Often Detrimentally

Courogen notes that May's directing career began to suffer when she challenged producers’ requests to soften or streamline her work, which inevitably led to protracted and at times antagonistic relationships with studios.

She provides examples from multiple productions, starting with A Matter of Position, in which demands for cuts to the original script led to May stepping back from what had been her most high-stakes production so far. On A New Leaf, where the studio heads feared she’d be a difficult director from the start, they found her more cooperative than expected – until the film entered postproduction. When presented with their recut of her film, streamlined and free of the two murders that took place in her original draft, she refused to allow them to release it. But the film Mikey and Nicky would be the nail in the coffin.

Other Perspectives

• The challenges with producers might have been symptomatic of broader systemic issues within the industry, such as a lack of support for creative autonomy, rather than the direct cause of her career's downturn.
• The relationship between directors and studio executives can be symbiotic, with both parties bringing valuable insights and expertise to the table.
• The decision to step back from a production can sometimes be more about personal pride than the quality of the work, potentially leading to missed opportunities for collaboration and improvement.
• The studio's decision to recut "A New Leaf" might have been motivated by commercial considerations, aiming to create a film that would appeal to a broader audience and be more financially successful.
• It's possible that "Mikey and Nicky" was not the definitive end of May's career but rather a turning point that led to a reevaluation of her approach to filmmaking or her choice of projects.

Mikey and Nicky's Disintegration: Creative Differences, Production Delays, Lawsuits, Sabotage Accusations

When Mikey and Nicky began production in 1974, both parties took caution: May’s contract included a clause ensuring she’d have final cut, while Paramount set limits on budget and a deadline for delivery. Courogen details the ways that each party involved in the deal would eventually break their commitments.

What started as a small, simple film about two friends soon spiraled into an extravaganza, consuming two weeks shy of 120 days of filming, a quintet of acknowledged cinematographers (and several more uncredited ones), and $4.3 million, nearly double the budget approved by Paramount. However, the extended postproduction, an endless edit-and-reshoot cycle that resulted in nearly 250 miles of footage, spelled disaster. Paramount eventually grew tired of waiting and called her bluff, demanding the footage for a studio edit. May hid two of the reels, and the resulting lawsuit dragged on for over a year.

Context

• Previous films with similar issues, such as Orson Welles' "The Magnificent Ambersons," where studio interference altered the director's vision, might have influenced May's insistence on final cut rights.
• Final cut privileges are rare and typically reserved for directors with significant clout or proven track records, as studios often prefer to retain control to ensure commercial viability.
• Deadlines are crucial in the film industry to align with marketing strategies, distribution schedules, and to avoid competition with other major releases.
• Accusations of sabotage in film production can involve claims that one party intentionally disrupted the project. This could include hiding footage, as mentioned, or other actions that hinder the completion of the film.
• As a major studio, Paramount would have been concerned about the financial implications of a film exceeding its budget, as it could impact their overall financial performance and shareholder expectations.
• Most films, especially during the 1970s, typically had shooting schedules ranging from 30 to 60 days, depending on the complexity and budget. A 120-day shoot was unusually long, indicating significant production challenges.
• Hiring multiple cinematographers can increase production costs, as it may involve additional contracts, negotiations, and potentially higher fees for experienced professionals.
• Prolonged postproduction can result in legal disputes, especially if contractual obligations regarding delivery and budget are not met, potentially leading to lawsuits and financial penalties.
• Handling such a vast amount of footage would present significant challenges in the editing process, requiring extensive time and resources to sift through and assemble a coherent narrative.
• This term refers to disagreements between the director and the studio regarding the film's artistic direction. Such differences can lead to tension and conflict, impacting the production process.
• Hiding film reels is a serious breach of contract, leading to legal action as studios seek to protect their investments and enforce agreements.

Ishtar's Collapse: Budget, Bad Press, and Elaine's Difficulty Create Box-office Disaster

After nearly a decade working in what could be generously called career stasis, Elaine won back the trust of those with the power to not only fund her work but give her a second chance at directing. She convinced her friends, Dustin Hoffman and Warren Beatty, to not only star in the film, but to participate in its production, an idea they agreed to – reluctantly – with the hopes that she could pull through her end.

Courogen’s detailed chronicling of the movie’s production, which culminated in the highest budget ever spent on a studio comedy to date, is full of unbelievable anecdotes and a source of constant controversy among those involved in its making and the critics who analyzed its failure.

As filming began, it quickly became apparent to Columbia Pictures—and the crew—that Ishtar would be an anomaly. Even if the film had stayed on schedule during its grueling ten-week Moroccan shoot, the amount of footage May filmed ballooned postproduction into a year-long marathon editing session, exceeding all her prior work. And when the movie was finally completed, it was deemed "lifeless enough to draw vultures." Although Ishtar’s failure can be attributed to a host of interconnected factors, the author notes how it was May—“the writer, director, and star of what was called ‘the most expensive comedy in history’”—who would bear the majority of the blame.

Context

• Winning back trust in Hollywood often involves proving one's ability to deliver a commercially viable product. This can be achieved through successful smaller projects, networking, or demonstrating a change in working style.
• Both actors had worked with May before, which might have influenced their decision to support her despite any reservations, based on past professional relationships.
• The high budget set a new benchmark for what studios might be willing to spend on comedies, which traditionally had lower budgets compared to action or sci-fi films.
• Shooting in Morocco presented logistical challenges, such as difficult weather conditions and complex coordination, which can attract media attention if they cause delays or issues.
• During the 1980s, film editing was a manual and labor-intensive process, involving physical cutting and splicing of film reels. This made post-production particularly time-consuming compared to modern digital editing techniques.
• The term "lifeless" in film criticism often refers to a movie lacking energy, engagement, or emotional depth, which can result in a disconnect with audiences and critics.
• There were reported creative differences between Elaine May and the studio, which can lead to a disjointed final product that fails to resonate with audiences.
• The film's unprecedented budget for a comedy heightened the stakes, and its financial failure was more impactful, leading to greater scrutiny and blame placed on May as the director.

Choosing Writing Over Directing: Prioritizing Creative Control Over Filmmaking Perils

Rather than weather another flop era after Ishtar's resounding failure, May chose to retreat to the safest and most creatively fulfilling space she knew best: writing. She found work as a script doctor for movies such as Tootsie and Wolf, projects steered by peers and friends whom she trusted. But as Hollywood shifted to favor big-budget blockbusters and teenage boys, it was obvious that a comeback at her caliber wasn’t foreseeable. Instead, she would focus on playwriting, creating safe spaces to work where she could be free to explore her anxieties without as much emotional exhaustion, on projects that weren’t beholden to the pressure of opening weekends or financial stakeholders.

Context

• Directing a film is a demanding process that involves managing large teams and dealing with significant financial stakes. Writing, particularly in a more private or controlled environment, can be less taxing and more personally rewarding.
• "Ishtar" was a 1987 film directed by Elaine May that became infamous for its critical and commercial failure. It was a costly production that faced numerous challenges, leading to its reputation as a major box office flop.
• Directed by Mike Nichols, this horror film stars Jack Nicholson and Michelle Pfeiffer. It combines elements of werewolf mythology with a corporate thriller, focusing on themes of power and transformation.
• The target audience for these blockbusters often skewed younger, particularly teenage boys, influencing the types of stories and genres that were prioritized. This demographic focus further sidelined filmmakers whose work appealed to different or broader audiences.
• Many writers and artists use their work to process personal anxieties and experiences. For May, playwriting could provide a therapeutic outlet to delve into her thoughts and emotions in a controlled and supportive setting.

Her Midlife Relationships and Artistic Identity Struggles

As May moved through middle age and into her latter career as a writer, she grappled with the choices she had made, the costs incurred in the chase for a career, and the ways those choices strained her primary relationships.

Choosing Art Over Motherhood: Giving Up Custody For Career, Straining Relationship

Courogen explores the long-lasting repercussions of Elaine May's choice, decades prior, to prioritize her career as an artist at the expense of motherhood. Leaving her young daughter to pursue her aspirations, a decision that many viewed as both shocking and career-ending for a woman at the time, had an undeniable impact on their relationship as she was consistently on the move while navigating the demanding travel of stand-up performance and the instability of a fledgling career.

Balancing Family and Career: Reconciling Roles as Wife, Stepmother, and Aspiring Artist

By the early 1960s, having cemented a strong professional presence in New York's theatrical world, May found herself seeking fulfillment and stability in a new marriage. The ensuing scandal of her affair with a married psychoanalyst further complicated her role as a mother. Thrust into the role of stepmother to three young girls whose mother had just died, May struggled to balance her creative ambitions with the demands of running a home and raising a family.

Context

• The search for fulfillment in a new marriage might reflect a desire for emotional support and partnership, which could be particularly appealing for someone navigating the complexities of a demanding career and personal life.
• Psychoanalysis was a popular and influential field during this time, with many people seeking therapy from psychoanalysts, who were often seen as authority figures.
• Becoming a stepmother can involve navigating complex family dynamics, especially when children are grieving the loss of a parent.
• Sure, here are some clarifications:

Finding Success: "The Birdcage" Comes Back, Marks Victory in Mainstream Filmmaking After Decades of Stasis

By the mid-1990s, after a decade of creative stasis, May was thrust once again into the trenches of Hollywood. At this stage, she wasn't in command. Instead, she would work alongside her best friend Mike Nichols to adapt the 1978 film La Cage aux Folles for an American audience – a choice she felt confident was an easy win, but one she knew would require a skillful understanding of the current social and political climate. Courogen notes how May’s ability to balance warmth with satire, her updated setting for the film, and the way she injected her characters’ identities with new, more specific complexities, not only brought the story into the burgeoning social awareness of the mid-1990s, but ensured its success.

Their resulting film, The Birdcage, was their greatest act of collaboration. It was a triumph both critically and commercially, proof that their work, even decades later, still resonated.

Context

• The original 1978 film is a French-Italian production directed by Édouard Molinaro. It is a comedy about a gay couple who run a drag nightclub in St. Tropez and deal with societal and familial challenges.
• Updating the setting allowed for the incorporation of 1990s fashion and aesthetics, which could make the film visually appealing and relatable to its audience.
• By infusing characters with specific complexities, May could enhance the film's humor and satire, using these elements to challenge societal norms and provoke thought while entertaining the audience.
• The film grossed over $185 million worldwide, making it one of the highest-grossing films of the year, which demonstrated its wide appeal and commercial viability.
• The film's humor and heartwarming story about family and acceptance had a universal appeal, allowing it to connect with a diverse audience beyond just those interested in LGBTQ+ issues.
• The Birdcage was both a box office hit and critically acclaimed, demonstrating that films with diverse themes and characters could achieve mainstream success, encouraging studios to invest in similar projects.

Choosing Reliability and Trustworthiness Over Hollywood's Networking Demands: Collaborating Exclusively With Friends

Courogen emphasizes how May’s intense distrust of others, fueled by a lifetime of personal and professional betrayals, solidified her preference for collaborating only with a trusted inner circle of close loved ones.

As a playwright, May gravitated toward working with those she had known for years—people like Greg Mosher, Alan Arkin, and her daughter, actress Jeannie Berlin—and in the roles of script consultant and ghostwriter she was known for her ability to salvage other people’s work.

Context

• The entertainment industry often emphasizes networking and forming new connections, which can be challenging for those who have experienced betrayal, making a close-knit circle more appealing.
• A prominent theater director and producer, Greg Mosher has been involved in numerous Broadway productions. His collaboration with May likely stems from their shared history in theater and mutual respect for each other's work.
• In creative industries, trust is crucial for collaboration. Working with a trusted circle allows for open communication and honest feedback, which can lead to more successful and cohesive projects.

Playwriting Success and Joy: Collaborating With Daughter Jeannie and Reuniting With Mike Nichols

After the collapse of her directorial career, May found renewed success on stage. She wrote a series of Off-Broadway plays full of her dark absurdist sense of humor, often working with Jeannie Berlin, her daughter.

Courogen notes in particular the success of the 1998 triple bill Power Plays, co-written by May and Alan Arkin, and starring Arkin, May, Anthony Arkin, and Jeannie Berlin. While the critics were impressed with their performances, they also acknowledged the uneven quality of the trilogy. The reviewer noted that the plays would have been considered "terminally torpid" if not for the stellar cast. But these flaws were simply the natural byproducts of May’s creative process, as she prioritized truth and character development over the easy laughs or cleanly structured narrative expected on Broadway.

Context

• After facing setbacks in film, May shifted her focus to theater, where she could exercise more creative control and explore her unique style without the constraints of the film industry.
• Off-Broadway refers to professional venues in New York City with a seating capacity between 100 and 499. These theaters are known for more experimental and innovative productions compared to Broadway, which often features larger, more commercial shows.
• Working with her mother provided Jeannie Berlin with opportunities to engage in projects that might have differed from mainstream offerings, allowing her to explore more avant-garde or unconventional roles and narratives.
• Alan Arkin was an accomplished actor, director, and writer, known for his versatility in both comedic and dramatic roles. He had a long and successful career in film and theater, earning numerous accolades, including an Academy Award.
• A style of comedy that combines elements of absurdity and dark themes, often highlighting the irrational or illogical aspects of life in a humorous way.
• During the late 1990s, there was a growing appreciation for innovative and non-traditional theater, which might have influenced critics to value the performances over the structural elements of the plays.
• Collaborative works, especially those involving multiple writers like May and Arkin, can lead to inconsistencies in tone or style. Each writer may bring different strengths and perspectives, contributing to a diverse but sometimes uneven final product.
• In theater, a strong cast can elevate the material, bringing depth and nuance to the script that might not be apparent on the page. Skilled actors can enhance the audience's experience by adding layers of interpretation and emotional resonance.
• In character-driven narratives, the plot is secondary to the exploration of characters' inner lives, motivations, and transformations, which can lead to more nuanced and complex storytelling.

Embracing Fame: Accepting Accolades From an Industry That Once Shunned Her

Though she always insisted on her indifference toward fame, May spent much of her latter career working to undo the bad reputation that shadowed her after Ishtar, as she slowly emerged from years of near seclusion to receive a string of awards and accolades honoring her work.

Courogen notes that this shift away from retreating into anonymity into a more active participation in the social side of her career appears to be as strategic as it was personal. After seeing numerous colleagues and friends win career-honoring awards, May likely understood that she was responsible for shaping her own legacy. she had to be

Context

• Despite the setbacks following "Ishtar," May's return to the public sphere and acceptance of accolades demonstrate her resilience and enduring impact on the arts.

Other Perspectives

• The focus on May's efforts to undo her bad reputation could overshadow the intrinsic merit of her later work, implying that her recognition was more about image rehabilitation than the quality of her contributions.
• May's shift could have been less about strategy and more about a natural evolution of her feelings towards fame and recognition as she aged.
• The industry's previous shunning does not obligate May to accept its later accolades; she could maintain her stance of indifference and choose not to engage with an industry that did not support her initially.