...Waiting for the fish to bite or waiting for wind to fly a kite. Or waiting around for Friday night or waiting perhaps for their Uncle Jake or a pot to boil or a better break or a string of pearls or a pair of pants or a wig with curls or another chance. Everyone is just waiting...
-Dr. Seuss
Recently Ron Paul gave an historic press conference asking for voters to consider voting for third party candidates. He invited four third-party candidates to be present at the conference and gave them all an endorsement.
Here is the press conference for your review:
In his press conference he made three major points:
1.) A large number of people do not want a McCain or Obama presidency - collectively we are a political force, 2.) All four of his suggested third party candidates have 4 positions in common:
* bring the U.S. troops home * protect our civil liberties * investigate the Federal Reserve * balance the federal budget
3.) the two party system is corrupt, limits the choices of the American people and must come to an end..
Ralph Nader will appear on the Bill Maher Show tonight on HBO.
We've been told that also appearing on the show will be comedian Chris Rock.
One of our favorite movies is Head of State, in which Chris Rock plays Mays Gilliam, a Chicago alderman running for President of the United States.
Gilliam gives an historic speech (for Hollywood, anyway) in which he says that corporations are "stealing all the money."
And the crowd yells -- "that ain't right."
Well, while McCain, Obama and Bush were hunkered down inside the White House yesterday working to bail out the crooks on Wall Street, we were outside in front of the White House yelling -- "That ain't right."
A few months ago I heard an NPR story about a group of evangelical pastors who had just released an “Evangelical Manifesto” whose aim was to depoliticize the evangelical movement and reclaim the word evangelical as a purely spiritual moniker. I was amazed. Largely because of the exhaustive work of such Reagan and post-Reagan era figures as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, I had always assumed that evangelicals were by definition political. I was sure that their aim was to reshape the nation into a conservative Christian bastion through a grassroots campaigning process that since the early eighties has been astonishingly successful. Well, it turns out (duh!) that evangelicals, though they share certain core beliefs about the Bible, God and Jesus Christ, are as varied a bunch as, say, atheists or Hindus or lumberjacks.
And I started thinking about why all these years I’ve regarded evangelical Christians as a monolithic entity when as a liberal man of the arts I pride myself on being curious about all peoples and cultures. The fact is that I’ve been content to live in the comfortable and judgmental bubble of a coastal, secular urbanite. Even worse, one that works in the theater, where it is assumed everyone is liberal and extremely tolerant.
But theater is supposed to be a community, a chance for artists and audiences to share moments of catharsis about our place in the world and culture we inhabit. (Sounds a bit like church, doesn’t it?) So why have so few American plays explored the very strong evangelical movement that defines so many communities in the States, if not increasingly the nation itself? The few plays that do address the subject tend to be either satirical or overtly judgmental. Why this separation of church and stage? (You know I’ve been waiting to use that one for ages.)
Which is why I’m so grateful to the wonderful New York-based theater group The Civilians for tackling the subject with such curiosity and compassion. THIS BEAUTIFUL CITY, a study of the unofficial evangelical capital of the U.S., Colorado Springs, is a documentary play with music that is performed by one of the smartest and most dynamic young companies in the country.
The Civilians, who have had several Off-Broadway hits in the last few years, do not work in a conventional script-based method. To quote their mission statement, “The Civilians is a production company that develops original projects based in the creative investigation of actual experience. Using methods that combine documentary and artistic practices, the company creates engaging shows that illuminate the interplay between the personal and larger social phenomena. The performances are boldly theatrical and rooted in a dynamic relationship to the audience, taking inspiration from the full range of theatrical forms—from cabaret to experimental theater. The Civilians works with a multidisciplinary group of Associate Artists who generate ideas and collaborate on the development of new work.” (To learn more about them, check out their website at www.thecivilians.org.)
To research this project, the company, including artistic director Steve Cosson, his co-writer Jim Lewis, five of the company’s actors and composer Michael Friedman, whom you know as the composer of BLOODY BLOODY ANDREW JACKSON, spent a 10-week residency in Colorado Springs. Over those ten weeks, the company members fanned out throughout the city and conducted interviews with a wide array of community members—from pastors at several of churches, most notably at the influential megachurch New Life, and devout congregants of all ages to the editor of an alternative newspaper and an evangelical transsexual who is trying to find ways to fit God into her life. To The Civilians’ credit, their project was always transparent. The community was always involved. In fact, in February 2007 they presented a workshop of an early draft of the play, when it was called “Save This City,” and invited all the people whom they interviewed. To everyone’s surprise, both the evangelicals in the audience and their detractors thought the play cast them in a favorable light. Everyone was equally engaged.
While The Civilians were in Colorado Springs, though, a scandal erupted at New Life that grabbed the national headlines for a few days. The founder and lead pastor of the church, Ted Haggard, was revealed to have hired the services of a male prostitute several times and to have bought crystal meth from the man and used it with him. This is the kind of event that documentarians—whether in film or the theater—live for, the moment when the theoretical they’ve been exploring becomes urgent and immediate. And as you will see in the play, the revelation allowed the company a whole new round of interviews and the chance to discover more than they’d anticipated about the community’s capacity for candor, self-examination and forgiveness.
For as much as THIS BEAUTIFUL CITY is about evangelical Christianity, it is also about a growing American community discovering to what extent it can accept change and heterogeneity. As we enter the final months of the presidential election and politicians try to convince us that America is divided by irreconcilable differences between red and blue states, U.S. citizens and illegal immigrants, the religious right and the liberal left, I’m delighted you’ll have a chance to spend some time in Colorado Springs as experienced and brought to life by The Civilians.
To hear the NPR “Day to Day” segment about the Evangelical Manifesto, click here.
Thank you.
Pier Carlo Talenti Resident Dramaturg / Literary Manager
This Friday John McCain and Barrack Obama are going head to head in their first presidential deabte. So far it's just the two of them and I think that stinks. I am not saying I am going to vote for Nader or Bob Barr or the Green Party candidate, but I do think that having them be part of the debate and part of the discussion would be good for the Dems and the GOP. I think it would challenge Obama and McCain and would put more solutions on the table and perhaps force them away from partisan party line politics and more toward what American's really want and need.
I realized yesterday that I love Puccini. I have seen Tosca, and I loved it, and La Boheme, which I also loved. Then I loved all three parts of Il Trittico. Next month we see Madama Butterfly. I can't wait.
Puccini has a way of expressing through music and lyrics what is generally confined to private emotions. His work is incredibly moving because it gets right to the heart of what we have all felt and experienced: love, pain, pleasure, desperation. Puccini's charcteristic style is called verismo which has been defined by William Berger as "seeking to show life as it is among people as they are." Of course actors and actresses in costume and make up on a stage performing some plot is hardly real life, but there is a truth to his operas that is both genuine and unapologetic.
The all three operas in the triptych (which is what il trittico means) have a common theme of death, but each one has its own disposition. Puccini drew on the Parisian Grand Guignol model of three naturalistic plays performed together which portray the horrific, the sentimental and the comedic. The first two operas, one dark and one tragic, were directed by William Friedkin, director of The Exorcist, and the last one, the comedy, was directed by Woody Allen.
The first of the operas was called Il Tabarro, or the Cloak. Like Tosca, it is a story filled with deception, vengeance and tension. It's mood is dark. Giorgetta is married to Michele, a barge owner who works on the Seine. The day is winding down and the workers are nearly finished unloading the barge. Giorgetta is from the city, as is Luigi (one of Michele's workers), and they reminisce about the romance of city living. They dance to the the songs of an organ grinder and Giorgetta pours wine for the workers. Michele returns and the festivities abruptly end. Giorgetta and Luigi secretly plan to rendezvous in the night, as they have been doing, when Giorgetta gives the signal of a lit match. Luigi leaves and Michele laments to his wife that he longs for things to be as they were, when they were happy together, before their son died, when he could fit all three under his cloak. He knows Giorgetta is unfaithful to him and he wants to win back her love. Darkness falls and Michele, alone on the barge's deck lights a pipe. Luigi, mistaking the lit pipe for Giorgetta's signal, appears. Michele confronts Luigi and forces him to confess his affair. Luigi does and Michele kills him and covers him with his cloak. Giorgetta has had a change of heart and comes to the deck wishing to make up for her coldness to Michele and tells him that she wishes she could again find loving comfort in his cloak. Michele replies by pulling back the cloak and revealing her dead lover.
I was shocked by the ending of the opera. I knew that death was the common theme, but I assumed the death was that of their son, an event which had driven them apart. The synopsis I read said nothing of the murder, simply that Luigi was forced to confess to the affair, and that in response to Giorgetta's change of heart Michele opened wide his cloak. I didn't do my homework well or I would have known Il Tabarro was a tragedy. Instead, I thought the opera would have a happy ending! I sort of enjoyed being thrown off because it seems like in opera there are no surprises. The synopses are spoilers and of course if you know it is a tragedy it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the end anyway. Always death, death, death.
I really loved the music. It was absolutely fantastic. There was even a scene when the street performer is playing that the orchestral music is transformed into an organ grinder. It really made the music an integral part of the plot, unlike The Fly.
The second opera, Suor Angelica, was my favorite. It is hard to compare a one act opera with a full feature opera, but Suor Angelica ranks up there with the best I've ever seen. It is about a young woman from a wealthy and successful family who, seven years before the story begins, had an illegitimate baby and was forced to give him up and enter a convent. Presently isolated from the outside world and news of her family, she lives as Sister Angelica in the peace of the nunnery and prays daily for atonement for her sins and news of her beloved son. On this day the Abbess announces that she has a visitor, her first contact with the outside world since entering the convent. Her aunt arrives to explain that Angelica's sister is to be married and Angelica must sign a document turning over her share of her dead parents' estate to her sister. Angelica begs for news of her son and her aunt tells her that died of a fever two years earlier. Angelica cannot bear the news. After her aunt leaves and she is alone she sings a heartrending song grieving that her son died without knowing how much she loved him. She then drinks a deadly poison but realizes too late that she is damned because she has committed a mortal sin. She prays to the Virgin Mary for mercy and the Virgin answers by appearing with Angelica's son, welcoming her to heaven. In LA Opera's production the Virgin Mary descends from above center stage and suddenly the Church door opens and luminous white light spills out into the dark courtyard where Sister Angelica lies dying. Her son appears in the doorway and walks toward his mother. The curtain falls.
It was so moving that I have included the two best videos I could find on YouTube, the first called "Senza Mamma" or "A Mother's Cry" and the second video is the finale "Ah! Son Dannata!" and I honestly am not sure what that translates to. I think LA Opera's finale was much more effective than the one in the video, because in LA Opera's version you see that Mary has forgiven her, and you see her son welcoming her as opposed to just standing in the doorway.
I actually cried, more than my normal welling up or shedding a single tear. It was so sad. During the intermission I used the restroom and found that most of the other ladies had also cried. We all agreed that we were ready for a comedy.
Luckily the last opera, Gianni Schicchi, is a comedy about a rich uncle who dies and leaves all his money to a monastery and his family's scheme to rewrite his will. It opens with the family looking for Buoso Donati's will and pretending to mourn. Young Rinuccio asks his Aunt Zita whether he can marry his sweetheart Lauretta if Uncle Buoso left him well off. She agrees and Rinuccio sends for Lauretta and her father Gianni Schicchi, a nouveau riche man from the country. The will is finally found and they discover that Buoso left his wealth to the monastery. They are angry and stop pretending to mourn, even blowing out the candles they had lit. Rinuccio suggests that Schicchi is clever enough to solve their problem somehow but the family will not agree to let a low born country bumpkin in on their affairs.
Then Schicchi, dressed like a mobster, and Lauretta arrive at Buoso's house and Aunt Zita tells Rinuccio that she will not allow him to marry a girl without a dowry. Rinuccio asks Schicchi to look over the will but feeling slighted Schicchi at first refuses. His daughter's touching pleas, in the song "O Mio Babbino Caro," to allow her to marry her beloved, change his mind.
Schicchi hatches a plan to keep Buoso's death a secret long enough to allow him to dress up like the old man and draw up a new will. The family agrees and each member of the family tells him what they want and promise him rewards in return. He warns them all that the punishment for falsifying a will or helping to falsify a will is to have the right hand cut off and be exiled from Florence. He has a funny song about how he will miss Florence and he will salute it with his stump as he leaves. He then strips down to boxers and a black mesh wife beater a la Tony Soprano and changes into pajamas and is tucked into bed. The notary arrives to record his last will and testament and Schicchi dictates the will leaving a few lire to the monks, some pastures and country houses to the family, and the prized estate in Florence, the mills in Signa and the mule to Buoso's "good friend," Gianni Schicchi! The family is angry but are powerless to stop him, lest they all be implicated in the scheme.
But Schicchi's intentions are good, and he makes his gains into his daughter's dowry, allowing her and Rinuccio to marry. One of the Donati's comes back in a fit of rage and stabs Schicchi, but he asks forgiveness of the audience as the curtain comes down. It was pretty hilarious, from the stereotypically Italian portrait of the Donati family to the steamy scenes between Rinuccio and Lauretta, and I'm sure Woody Allen had a lot to do with that.
Two of the Opera's characters are taken out of literature and history. Mary Jane Phillips says that Gianni Schicchi is from Dante's Inferno, coming from a horrific scene in the thirtieth canto where Danta and his guide encounter Schicchi among the Falsifiers, "impostors who had assumed false names or taken on the identities of others." The passage reads,
I saw two shadows, pale and naked, which ran arounf biting others just as a hungry hog does when let out of its sty. One of the shadows came to [another figure], fastened its tusks into his neck, and dragged the victim across the rocky floor of Hell, letting it dig into his belly. As others trembled in fear, one man said to Dante, 'that sprite is Gianni Schicchi, who is rabbid and rips other men apart.' When he was alive he disguised himself as Buoso Donati, a rich Florentine who had died, and drafted a fraudulent will and managed to make it legal.
There is also a historical Gianni Schicchi who did live in Florence and supposedly swindled the Donati family.
Then we rushed off to the next theater to see This Beautiful City which was a unique play with music about the evangelical movement, its effect on Colorado Springs (its unofficial capital), and the confusion of a community in crisis following the scandalous fall of pastor Ted Haggard. It was funny and sad, and the music was awesome, and the cast was interactive, and overall it was great. It was a very insightful look into the community of Colorado Springs.
The music was by Michael Friedman who also did the music for my favorite musical, Bloody Bloody Andre Jackson, and it was sometimes serious, sometimes irreverent, and sometimes just like Sunday morning worship in a contemporary evangelical church, from the worship leaders up on the stage to the lyrics projected on the back wall.
I thought it did a good job of telling the story of a community in a very objective way. Of course I am not from Colorado Springs, nor have I ever been there, but it didn't seem slanted toward one side or the other. It introduced us to evangelical members of New Life, Ted Haggard's church, as well as associate pastors and the youth group TAG. We also met towns people who went to other Baptist churches, and a Catholic priest, a church that had revivals in a cave, atheists, jews, students at the Air Force Academy and more so it was pretty well balanced.
Between the scenes a park ranger would come out and give advice about visiting Pike's Peak, like always be prepared for anything and carry the essentials, pack out your trash because otherwise animals will dig it up and spread it all around, watch out for mountain lions because they will strike and kill, and making it up to the top of Pike's Peak is only half the journey. Obviously these little nuggets of wisdom are metaphors for what happened to Pastor Ted and his congregation.
I still can't really sympathize with Haggard. If he is miserable in a heterosexual marriage I do feel bad for him, but it is his own fault. I do feel for his family and for all the people that looked to him as their fearless leader. But as for Haggard, he played a large role in making life hard for homosexuals in Colorado in general and Colorado Springs in particular. From openly hostile and narrow-minded church members to Focus on the Family just down the street, it doesn't sound like a welcoming environment for gays, and there sure weren't any legal protections. So it seems that he made his own bed.
But that wasn't really the point of the play. The point was that Colorado Springs was a city of people searching for the American dream, and it was also a city divided by those dreams. Everyone was seeking the ability to express themselves and their beliefs freely and to live their life as they chose, and yet their choices isolated them from the other side, either religious or non-religious.
So, we saw the preview but the show officially opens to the press next weekend. I suggest you get tickets and go see it for yourself. Call them up and give them the code NEWLIFE and you can get any seat in the house to selected shows for $20, and there really isn't a bad seat in the house. It plays till October 26th so don't miss your chance! Click here to visit their website.
Sergei and I started watching the Showtime series Weeds. We thought we were going to have to break down and subscribe to Netflix like everyone else, but no. We found it free ( we heart free) at watchweedsonline.org.
To stave off the complete collapse of A.I.G., we, the American taxpayers, have generously loaned the insurance behemoth $85 billion of our national treasure. We refuse to finance universal health coverage for all of us, but we certainly don’t mind bailing out greedy scumbags who willingly gambled their investor’s money in stupidly risky ventures knowing that Uncle Sam would socialize their risk.
And may I remind you that the biggest supporters of free market economics are now the ones on their knees begging to be saved from themselves by the evil and inefficient government they’ve been badmouthing for thirty years. That’s right: these Wall Street Welfare Queens have been the champions of free market economics and deregulation for the last 30 years, but now these government haters are gladly going on the government dole to save their asses.
Like the rest of you, I've been following this financial market collapse episode. I don't pretend to know what the solution is, nor do I claim to be a great policy analyst, but it is apparent that there is something wrong with our current system.
I don't want our economy to tank, and I don't want a bunch of home owners to lose their houses, or hardworking people to lose their retirement, but I am not sure I like that the federal government is bailing out all these financial institutions that made poor decisions and took big risks and, frankly, lost. Perhaps the alternative, letting the market have its way with them, would have been the greater evil. Who am I to say?
The thing that really gets me, and I may be wrong here, but it seems like all this corporate greed has been inevitably leaning ever closer to this demise for some time now. Am I wrong here? Am I just wearing blue tinted liberal lenses? Anyone with a semblance of an IQ could have seen a while back here that the housing market (key word: bubble) was just too good to be true. That is one belief I cling to tightly. If it seems too good to be true... But I digress.
My point is, there was very little regulation. There was a lot of predatory lending going on, even some illegal and shameless deception. But even if it was all on the up and up, I find it hard to believe that there wasn't more education required before entering into such risky loans. I mean, this is America where the trend since the early 80s has been away from savings and into debt. We are terrible with our personal finances (and our governments aren't much better with theirs). If I want to perform some medical intervention on a patient I have to explain to them both the benefits and the risks of such a treatment. Only then can I get informed consent. Why is it different when it comes to money?
When it comes to politics I have to admit to not remembering much before 2000. That was the first presidential election I was able to vote in, and that was when I was in college and started looking at current events with a more mature eye. To me, tt seems like Bush really handed the reigns over to the industries when it came to regulation. Again, I could be way off the mark here and if I am please correct me. Perhaps this is history repeating itself and Bush if following some earlier presidential precedent.
I think it is the government's job to protect its people, its citizens, not corporations or big industry. I understand that if the economic or environmental or political climate here becomes too inhospitable and toxic to industries they will go over seas to places with less regulations and our economy might suffer. Well, most of the goods we buy these days aren't manufactured in the good ol' US of A anyway, but I do understand that is a legitimate concern.
I still believe, however, that the government needs to be the advocates of its citizens. I think most Americans believe this because we are outraged when something tragic occurs, something that seems preventable, had there just been more rules or safeguards. Tainted dog food from China? How could it be? A college student guns down his fellow students? Where was the intervention? Metrolink crash? How could that happen? It is incredulous, right?
According to all the stuff I've been posting by Jonathon Haidt, moral psychologist and humankind observer, pretty much everyone in the whole world has an understanding of suffering and harm, and a drive to avoid it. That was a huge factor in the development of governments to begin with. So regulations don't seem so bad to me. In fact, it seems like government's job.
I'm not saying I want them to regulate everything, but we accept its authority to regulate speed limits because excessive speed is dangerous. We accept its authority to regulate what constitutes a doctor, or a lawyer, or an electrician, because these professions have the potential to cause damage if the practioner is not properly educated and trained. We expect the government to protect us from food that could make us sick, and drugs that are not safe. Why should we not also accept the government's regulation of financial lending, for the sake of the person borrowing? Why is that so taboo? Here is an interesting aside.
I guess I'm not even looking for an absolute in the sense that the government would prohibit all sub-prime and other awful loans, just that they would require not only full disclosure but also a certain amount of education to the person taking the loan. Before I took my Stafford loans I had to complete some training, and that was a stable low interest rate student loan. I think people should know what they are getting themselves into, both borrower and lender, and then I think we should let the cards fall where they may.
That's all I've got in me for now. But seriously, if anyone has another side of the argument, by all means speak up. Please.
Man, I had a bad day at work today. I had a day of training in the department responsible for restocking the units. Okay, fine. It is important to be familiar with where everything goes, and even the kind of equipment I will be using. I agree. But, the people responsible for training me decided instead to have me do their "dirty" work so to speak. Rather than checking out and restocking I ended up washing rigs. So much for being trained.
Now, I know when I am at work I belong to the company. For the most part I am willing to do whatever they ask me to earn my pay. To that end, I was being paid good money to detail ambulances. So while I shouldn't complain, I was put out by the fact that my trainers were also being paid and I was doing their work. See, it's all about fairness.
Add to this that I thought my trainers were unprofessional-they used profane language, their uniforms looked a mess, and they listened to Tom Lycas-and you can perhaps empathize with me. But even I shocked myself with an uncharacteristic cynicism. By the time I was on my fifth ambulance of the morning this was running through my head, "do you realize I'm a fucking paramedic? I don't know how to say this, but I'm kind of a big deal." Now, of course that was in jest, and very obviously influenced by the ego-driven EMS system of LA, but still.
When I got home I was still feeling a little cranky. Then I found out that the Los Angeles Parking Enforcement Detail smacked down my appeal of the parking citation from 4th of July weekend which was issued to me completely erroneously. So, that compounded my already petulant mood. I started complaining to Sergei about my day and he, sweet husband that he is, didn't roll his eyes at me but said, "Come on, I'm going to buy you a beer." That was actually all I needed to snap out of it, just him to good-naturedly call me on my sulky mood. I didn't need a drop of anything to see it was all pretty silly.
But, I'm still steamed about the ticket cause it's all rising up off of LA Parking Enforcement's giant pile of bullshit. Here's (briefly) what happened. Sergei and I went to the mountains to hike on 4th of July weekend. It was busy and there weren't a lot of places to park. We drove quite a ways from the trailhead and found a blocked off street with just a few other cars. We parked parallel to the road in a turn out that was not labeled with any kind of parking enforcement sign. We come back three hours later and there are a lot more cars around our car and a truck parked between us and a steep rock wall. There was a ticket on our car saying that we were doubled parked. Is it possible to double park when there is only one vehicle? Anyway, they don't seem to understand this so I am going to have to re-appeal. This is purely on principle. I mean really, what's $40? It sure as hell isn't worth the time and frustration I have put into fighting the damn ticket. But if LA Sheriffs can just go around issuing tickets all willy-nilly it takes away from their legitimacy. And I would really like to think that law enforcement it legit. What's next, I'll get a speeding ticket while my car is stopped?
Anyway, I wrote one letter that apparently wasn't good enough for them. I even hand drew little to scale maps and diagrams of the situation. What more do they want from me? If they deny my next contestation I will appeal it in person. On principle.
If you aren't sure how sour cream pairs with sweet and fruity, let me assure you, it is superbly. Yes, I prefer my apple pie and strawberries with this cultured cream. I found this recipe in a magazine my grandma had and I am enamored.
1 nine inch pie crust, unbaked* 3 c. pitted tart cherries, frozen or canned (thawed, drained and dried) 1 TBSP butter (softened) 1 3/4 c. + 2 TBSP sugar 1 c. flour 1/2 tsp salt 2 eggs (lightly beaten) 8 oz sour cream 1 TBSP lemon juice
Preheat oven to 400 F. Arrange cherries in pastry shell. Dot cherries with butter. In a large bowl combine 1 3/4 c. sugar, flour and salt. Stir in eggs, sour cream and lemon juice. Spread over cherries. Sprinkle remain sugar on top. Bake at 400 F for 10 minutes then reduce oven to 350 F and continue cooking for 30 minutes more (till topping is set). Cool for one hour and then refridgerate 3-4 hours before cutting and serving. Bon Apetit!
*For perfect freezable pie crusts try this recipe (makes 4 nine inch crusts):
4 c. flour 2 c. butter flavored shortening 2 tsp salt 1 TBSP sugar 1 egg 1 TBSP vinegar 1/2 c. water
Mix first four ingredients. Add last three ingredients. Mix until no longer sticky. If you have a stand mixer throw all the ingredients in and mix at once, first on low and then on medium until no longer sticky. Form four equal balls and wrap in plastic wrap. Freeze. To use, thaw 1 hour and roll out on a floured surface.
Sergei and I saw the LA Opera's production of The Fly this evening. It was directed by David Cronenberg with music by composer Howard Long, the director and composer of the the 1986 version of the film. The english libretto was by David Henry Hwang, librettist of Madama Butterfly. The opera was set in the 1950s as a nod to the original SciFi film, though the plot was nearly identical to the 1986 version.
Before I delve into the details I will say that overall I enjoyed the opera, and I highly encourage others to see it. The sets, costumes, and singers were great. It was actually the most elaborate set I've yet seen at an opera. The set was designed by Dante Ferretti who did the set for Tim Burton's Sweeney Todd. At one point Daniel Okulitch, who plays Seth Brundle in the opera, hangs upside down and sings. Tell me, what other opera has that?! Still, it was the plot I liked best.
I have not seen the original 1958 version of The Fly. I've only seen Cronenberg's versions, both movie and opera, and I like them. I like the underlying themes that its viewers are forced to confront.
One of the most prominent themes in the story is that of our own mortality and the fact that each days brings us ever closer to death. Seth Brundle's accelerated decline serves to make more poignant his imminent demise. He is a man who is at his peak, having just discovered love and also an invention capable of "changing the world as we know it." Still, fate knows no bounds, and time inevitably marches on. David Cronenberg said, "we've all got the disease, the disease of being finite."
There is the issue of alienation in the age of technology which is becoming ever more prominent in our world. In The Fly Brundle isolates himself from the world by throwing himself into his work, an invention that is meant to "change the world as we know it." He is redeemed by Veronica Quaife, who offers him companionship and love, only to be re-isolated after his invention goes terribly wrong. It is a parallel to modern technology (cell phones and the internet) in the sense that these inventions, which were meant to make communication more accessible, seem to have instead resulted in a decline in face to face contact.
The Fly also offers an interesting insight into innocence and knowledge of the flesh. Brundle has trouble getting his invention to work on living things because he is unable to teach the computer about the flesh since he himself does not understand it. After he and Veronica fall in love and he gains carnal knowledge he is able to teach the computer and successfully teleports a monkey. His knowledge of the flesh does not lead to his downfall. On the contrary, it lends itself to the invention of something that will "change the world as we know it." (His actual downfall is the result of an accident brought on by a compulsive decision.)
One of the biggest themes of The Fly is the crossroads of science and ethics. This is not a new refrain. Every new scientific discovery and invention brings with it its own controversy. From the fabled Tower of Babel to the LHC, the larger the implications of the discovery the greater the dissension. As a learned and sagacious moustachioed man once said, "with great power comes great responsibility." While I am on the subject of science I want to add that I loved that the protagonist was a scientist. I loved that science permeated the opera. Since most operas were written decades and even centuries ago, it is nice to have a modern operatic hero for geeks to rally around. Plus, the science jokes and dry humor was fabulous. (Q: Why did the chicken cross the mobius strip? A: To get the same side.)
Finally, The Fly looks at the time-old question of whether one must be whole and perfect to be loved. This theme comes up more often in the opera, perhaps because operas are supposed to be classical. Veronica asks multiple times whether one needs to be "whole," "perfect," or "beautiful" to deserve love. It harks back to Oedipus, Quasimodo, and Beauty and the Beast. Alfred Adler, one of the founders of the psychoanalytic movement, believed that in order for individuals with deformities to overcome feelings of inferiority they must either compensate with magnanimity of character or superordinary achievements, or they must decompensate with disfunctional and asocial behavior. Brundle does all three. He performs feats of extraordinary physical strength, then he hides himself away in his laboratory, and finally he tells Veronica she must leave him because he might hurt her. Ultimately, Veronica remains in love with Brundle. Veronica of the opera even decides (and in the english libretto reaffirms it for the audience about a hundred times) that she will have Brundle's child.
In a related theme, a character's outward appearance is not necessarily an indication of that character's inner self. If a disfigured character proves to be kind and venerable it reinforces the principle that deformity is not tantamount to inner evil. Brundlefly of the opera was not nearly as easy to empathize with as Brundlefly of the movie. "I am an insect who dreamed he was a man and loved it, but now the dream is over and the insect is awake." Unfortunately, Opera Brundlefly devolves quickly into a barbaric and savage creature that lacks any semblance of humanity. I thought the film had a more effective ending, with Brundlefly begging Veronica for a mercy killing while Veronica cries. In the opera Veronica does kill Brundlefly, but it is not at his request, and she doesn't seem distraught when she shoots him.
The Fly opera definitely supplied an ample amount of food for thought, but it must be noted that the music wasn't anything to get excited about. I'm not saying it was terrible, but it just wasn't memorable. There is not a single aria or duet or any other piece of music that stands out in mind.
The libretto is the first I've heard in english, so I don't know how others are (I will see Madama Butterfly later this year, and perhaps The Grapes of Wrath too) but it sounded simplistic, repetitive and awkward. In short, it bugged me. Okay, okay, that was lame. My apologies. Perhaps all libretto's sound this way to the native speaker of the libretto's language.
Left to Right: Placido Domingo - conductor, Howard Shore - composer, Ruxandra Donose - Veronica Quaife, Daniel Okulitch - Seth Brundle.
"There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. It underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the only home we've ever known: the pale blue dot."
My mom sent me this article from the OC Register today after our friendly back and forth. I would have linked directly to it, but there were a lot of ads on the page. So, here it is:
Paul Campos: Some atheists like to lord it over you By PAUL C. CAMPOS Syndicated columnist, University of Colorado law professor
In my younger and more vulnerable years I once got into a debate with a fundamentalist Christian about the morality of capital punishment. Her view was that the Bible sanctioned the death penalty, and as far as she was concerned that was the end of the matter.
What struck me most about her attitude toward the subject was her contempt for anyone who might see the question differently.
Recently I've gotten into several debates with some equally zealous atheists, and the sensation has been quite similar.
It's a typical irony of life that fundamentalist atheism should have so much in common with what it most despises. It's even more typical that its adherents are generally blind to these parallels.
Needless to say, just as most religious people aren't fundamentalists, the same holds true for atheists. Those who are, however – what we might think of as the Taliban of atheism – often have a prominence well beyond their sheer numbers.
Like their religious counterparts, fundamentalist atheists tend to combine considerable arrogance with a level of intellectual naivete that can be charming in precocious children, but is merely annoying in adults.
This arrogance is illustrated by their attitude toward questions that less self-confident souls might consider to be somewhat problematic – such as, the ultimate nature of reality – but that fundamentalists consider no more mysterious than the design of a bottle opener.
Indeed, one of the curiosities of fundamentalist atheists is their touching faith in the power of the human brain, which, despite being nothing more than a random evolutionary development in an omnivorous bipedal primate, has turned out to be sufficiently powerful (at least in their case) to discern the fundamental structure of the universe.
People of a less-robust faith might consider that a rather astounding coincidence.
The intellectual naivete of the fundamentalist atheist is reflected in the sorts of arguments he puts forth when he dismisses religious beliefs as not merely mistaken, but nothing more than childish superstitions that can't be taken seriously by any enlightened adult.
Consider, for example, the argument that something called "science" (a mysterious word that such people tend to invoke with a reverence their religious brethren reserve for the word "God") is based on a dispassionate examination of the "evidence" – and what mysteries lurk within that word! – while, by contrast, religious belief depends on something wholly different, called "faith."
This argument won't impress anyone who knows something about the history, philosophy, or sociology of science and religion, and who isn't already fanatically committed to believing it.
Again, like his religious counterpart, the fundamentalist atheist tends to avoid this difficulty by remaining ignorant of the thing he despises. His faith in atheism is maintained by building a straw-man version of religious belief, and knocking it over repeatedly, to the applause of like-minded believers.
The alternative to fundamentalism involves embracing the idea that the world is a deeply complex and mysterious place, which human beings have in all likelihood barely begun to understand. The non-fundamentalist atheist recognizes that many religious beliefs are just as rationally defensible as his atheism, and that, indeed, he might well hold those beliefs if his genes or his upbringing or his education had made him a slightly different (but equally rational) person.
The worst aspect of fundamentalism is the contempt it breeds for everyone who doesn't share the faith. The fundamentalist is forced by the tenets of his belief system to assume that the human race consists almost exclusively of deluded fools, who through a combination of stupidity and cowardice have failed to see the light, but that for some mysterious reason these almost universal disabilities don't apply to him.
As a prominent contemporary theologian has put it: Isn't that special?
Beneatha: Well- neither is God. I get sick of hearing about God.
Mama: Beneatha!
Beneatha: I mean it! I'm just tired of hearing about God all the time. What has He got to do with anything? Does he pay tuition?
Mama: You 'bout to get your fresh little jaw slapped!
Beneatha: Why? Why can't I say what I want to around here, like everbody else?
Mama: Because it's not nice to talk like that. You wasn't raised that way. Me and your daddy got you and Brother to church every Sunday.
Beneatha: You don't understand. It's all a matter of ideas. And God is just one idea that I don't accept. Now it's not important. I'm not going to be immoral or commit crimes because I don't believe. I don't even think about that. I just get so tired of Him getting the credit for things the human race achieves through its own effort. Now, there simply is no God. There's only man. And it's he who makes miracles.
(Mama slaps Beneatha)
Mama: Now you say after me: In my mother's house, there is still God. In my mother's house, there is still God.
Beneatha: In my mother's house, there's still God.
Mama: There's just some things we won't have around here. Not long as I'm still head of this family.
Okay, I still love Kucinich. He really believes in what he stands for, and I believe his sincerity is, well, sincere. His excitement is contagious. He has a new petition:
Kucinich Petition
WHEREAS, in his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has committed abuses of power.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that President George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and Commander in Chief, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States and that he be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors.
September 10, the day before the world changed, could be the day WE change the world.
Send a history-making message to Congress:
1,000,000 signatures for impeachment.
On September 10, 2008, we want to deliver ONE MILLION signatures to Congress urging them to exercise their Constitutional authority and mandate to hold this President - and all future Presidents - accountable.
I try hard not to be anti-religion even though I tend to generally view religion as a negative force. I know it isn't true in all cases, but as is the case with just about anything, the most obnoxious, the most outrageous, the most repugnant tend to be in the spotlight, and they tend to shape our opinions of the larger group. So, when I think of religion it is no wonder that I think of the charlatan Benny Hinn, the late Jerry Falwell, the guy at Bay to Breakers with the "Homos are going to Hell, yada yada yada" sign, and abortion clinic bombers.
I say all that, and yet I happen to come from a devout baptist family. I am in fact a recovering baptist myself so I know that religion isn't pure evil. But, it sure can be.
I appreciate that I have a right to reject a belief in God, or gods, or any higher power. In turn I respect others' right to have faith in whatever they want and to worship as they choose. I don't want them telling me what to believe in so I won't force my non-belief on them.
I believe strongly in a separation of church and state. I understand that the founding fathers may not have been strict atheists, but I also know they weren't Bible-thumping Christians. I think we should take "under God" out of the flag salute. It wasn't even added till 1954 basically to set us apart from the godless Soviets. I don't think there ought to be a moment of silence in public schools so students can pray if they so choose. No one is stopping them from praying without ceasing all day long. They just need to do it in their heads. I would be in favor of a comparative religion course in public schools that would focus on the theologies of major world religions as well as the differences between the various Christian sects. I also think that having a basic knowledge of the Bible, as taught in a literature class, is a good idea.
With all that said I want to explain my view of Sarah Palin. First of all, if you haven't heard her speech at her former church, the Wasilla Assembly of God (Assembly of God churches are part of the Pentecostal denomination) please watch the video below.
People who take a literalist view of the Bible have certain beliefs. People who attend fundamentalist churches, and people who agree with the teachings of those churches, have certain beliefs. It is natural for someone who believes every word of the Bible was inspired by God and is one hundred percent accurate historically and scientifically to see the world in terms of black and white, right and wrong, God's way or no way. Sarah Palin is one of those people. Her view of the Bible, its contents, God and his direct communication with her and others through the Holy Spirit is real. At least it is to her. And in her mind, she's got God on her side so how could she be wrong?
That is scary. In fact it is utterly terrifying because it will absolutely guide her political actions.
I want whoever is going to be casting the tie breaking vote in the Senate to use logic and reason and to think objectively and critically about all sides of an issue. I want whoever may succeed the president, in the case of his untimely death while in office, to demand evidence and to be able to analyze empirical data. I don't want someone who ignores scientific proof, or the results of social research. I don't want someone who would make any sort of policy decision based on what he or she thinks needs to happen in order for Jesus to come back because of some book at the end of the Bible. I don't want someone who would rather listen to God talking to her or him over advisors and experts.
In light of Palin's religious views, which are completely irrational because aside from personal revelation and the corroboratory revelations of other Holy rolling Christians there is NO EVIDENCE of God, or Jesus, or the Holy Spirit, or the verity of the Bible, it only makes sense to assume the rest of her views are irrational as well. This, in turn, leads me to call into question McCain's own judgment, since he approved a running mate who discards facts in favor of myths.
I will end with a quote by David Leeming, Emeritus Professor of English and Comparative Literature at the University of Connecticut:
"Fundamentalists see their way as the only way. They forget that myths--themselves in all likelihood factually untrue--represent truths that are spiritual and philosophical."
NPR ran a piece on LA Opera's production of The Fly. Sergei and I are going to see it next week and I can't wait. It premiers this Sunday and sounds fabulous and very cool. Click here to check out a video segment.
A geek from HtG sent out this video today, hands down the BEST RAP EVER:
Although I am not a big fan of the rap, I am a sucker for 80's music. Louis Logic samples a bunch of corny 80's tunes in his new CD and I find it irresistible. Go to YouTube and search "Louis Logic Sin-A-Matic: the 80's Edition" (or just click on this link) My favorite is "Street Smarts" because it starts out, "Yea-ah, drop that beat on 'em Jay" and then goes straight into "Land Down Under." Awesome.
One of my friends sent me a sock in the mail. And not just any sock, but a Peeps sock (like the bright yellow marshmallow goodies with an 11,000 year half life). Inside was a hand-illustrated flamingo and web address www.strangeandsillythings.com (not to be confused with just the boring www.strangeandsilly.com) written on a 3x5 card. She kind of let the cat out of the bag over the weekend about receiving a bizarre parcel in the mail but I can't hold it against her. I can't keep secrets when it comes to gifts either. But, the bottom line is... PARTY! Yea-ah!!
Next up, in regards to an earlier posting about CLUI and styrofoam recycling, I did find a product that is marketed as an all natural, earth-friendly, biodegradable, non-toxic, multi-purpose cleaning agent called Citrus King ("is there anything their product can't do?" she asks with starry eyes). On the website there is a series of photos showing a cube of styrofoam being dissolved by their product thereby reducing the volume of the styrofoam to 1/20 of its original size. I do see that decreasing the volume of styrofoam before disposal could definitely be a handy thing yet I imagine the solvent to be corrosive, and to possibly release super harmful gases during melt down. I see the Wicked Witch of the West steaming and screaming and melting... Now, I know that this is irrational, and that a product that asserts its non-toxicity and earth-friendliness is not going to do any of these things. But I would still be afraid to use it. At least without a proper demo, you know. And lastly, an interesting Op-Ed piece in the LA Times today by Sam Harris and his addendum:
I've received more than the usual amount of criticism for my recent opinion piece on Sarah Palin, most of it alleging sexism and/or an unseemly infatuation with Barack Obama. For those who care, I'd like to briefly respond:
My alleged sexism: It is true that I used some hackneyed, gender-slanted language in the piece ("get sassy," "girl-next-door," etc.). This was deliberate. Clearly, I played this game at my peril. I can say that if Sarah Palin were a man of similar qualifications, I would have used equally slanted language to describe him. I might have called Mr. Palin a "frat-boy" or a "lumberjack." I would have invoked some silly macho phrasing like,"Watch Cousin Jim flip Putin the bird." My concern is not that Mrs. Palin is a woman. My concern is that she is a totally unqualified and poorly educated woman who was added to the Republican ticket as a token woman (and Creationist wacko). For what it's worth, the article was vetted by the two women closest to me (wife and mother) and by two female editors at the LA Times. If anything, the editing at the Times made the piece even more "sexist."
My alleged Obamamania: Many McCain supporters have written to say that (1) Obama is also unqualified (or even less qualified than Palin) and (2) I have shown myself to be a hypocrite by not objecting to Obama's religiosity. Briefly: My criticism of Palin should not be construed as uncritical acceptance of Obama. Needless to say, I find Obama's religious pandering repulsive. The suspicion that he is pandering, out of obvious necessity, and not quite as religious as he makes out, is somewhat comforting, however. But even if Obama were precisely as religious as he appears, he is not a Creationist, Rapture-Ready blockhead. Palin, by all appearances, seems to be one. This is a difference worth noting. Whatever you may think of his politics, Obama is very intelligent and reasonably well educated. Palin thinks the universe is 6000 years old. Unfortunately, I wrote my article before some of the most disturbing signs of her religious extremism came to light.
So, let me simply declare that I would be overjoyed to have a qualified woman in the White House. I would, likewise, be overjoyed to have a qualified African American in the White House. In fact, I would be overjoyed to have a qualified WASP man in the White House. I will be guardedly optimistic to have a very smart (and somewhat qualified) Barack Obama in the White House. And I would be frankly terrified to have a religious bumpkin like Sarah Palin in the White House. I think you should share this last conviction. Hence my latest opinion piece.
I started working yesterday. I am apparently going to be in the classroom component of my orientation for approximately two weeks, though it could be longer. A lot of the people who should be training us have been deployed to the gulf coast because of Gustav, or are being deployed to Florida in preparation for Hanna, Ike, Josephine... So far I have no complaints. There are five other new people, and none of them seem like tools. Only one other person in training is going to the Riverside Division (which is AMR's largest division with about 500 field employees).
Overall, I have to say I am glad to be working again.
Bob Babbitt is the editor of Southern California's own Competitor Magazine. He is also an Ironman finisher, and one of the first. He spoke about his first Ironman at the pasta dinner before my marathon and he had us all in stitches.
Bob Babbitt completed his first Ironman back before the earth cooled, in February of 1980. How big was the Ironman back then? Only 108 idiots were entered that year and Babbitt completed the race on a $75 police auction bike that had been charred in a fire. He raced with panniers on said bike with a tent and a sleeping bag because he didn't know you were supposed to do the whole thing in one day, plus he had a support crew that provided him with the best in the world of nutrition- Big Mac, fries and a coke plus a snow cone. He also is the only athlete in Ironman history to complete the bike ride wearing regular shorts and a belt plus a wool cycling jersey.... in Hawaii.
Babbitt's fascination with triathlon began in 1979. He had moved to San Diego to teach and like so many others was intrigued when he read Barry McDermott's Sports Illustrated account of that year's Hawaii race. The race was won by San Diegan Tom Warren, proprietor of Tug's Tavern, a beach bar and restaurant.
Babbitt called Warren, wanting to pick his brain.
"He tells me to meet him in his office," says Babbitt.
Only Warren didn't list the bar's address. Instead, he gave a location near Crystal Pier.
"I get there and there's no building," says Babbitt. "Just this motor home. There's this paddleboard on top, a bike hanging off the back and running shoes hanging off the side view mirror. I look inside and there's this guy putting Vaseline on, getting ready for a run. He says, 'Babbitt? I'm Tom Warren. Welcome to my office.' "
Reading Babbitt's perplexed expression that the motor home didn't quite fit his definition of an office, Warren pointed across the street and said, "See that pay phone? See that roll of dimes (on his dashboard)? This is my office. I ride up the coast and back, swim around the pier and run from here."
Adds Babbitt: "That sounded good to me."
Babbitt and his then-roommate, famed mountain biker Ned Overend, had trained for Ironman Hawaii's 2.4-mile swimming leg in a 15-meter apartment pool, 120 lengths to the mile. "Basically, you got dizzy," Babbitt recalls. "If somebody jumped in the pool it was like a tsunami."
Not the strongest swimmer, Babbitt hardly complained when the swim leg for the 1980 race was shifted from the site of the Waikiki Rough Water Swim to the protected Ala Moana Channel.
For the bike ride, Babbitt was adorned in socks pulled to his knees and shorts with a belt. "I had to be the only guy to do the Ironman in shorts and a belt," says Babbitt. At Mile 25, Babbitt's crew handed him his nutritional replenishment - a Big Mac, fries and a Coke. At Mile 80, Babbitt wolfed down a snow cone. His other feedings included Hawaiian sweet bread. After the bike, his crew asked if he wanted to lie down on a bamboo mat for a massage.
"Sounds good," he said.
Forty-five minutes later, he took off on the run, which consisted of a lot of walking, as indicated by his 5-hour, 25-minute split. Back then, Ironman Hawaii had weigh-station checks. If an athlete lost more than five percent of their body weight they were yanked for safety precautions. By the second weigh station, at about Mile 7, Babbitt had gained four pounds.
Recalls Babbitt: "I hear the guy on the walkie-talkie: 'Give me that again.' "
"He gained four pounds."
Replied the medical aide, obviously unaware of Babbitt's addiction to sweet bread: "You're not supposed to gain weight doing this thing."
Near the end of the marathon, in the dark of night, nearly 14½ hours after his race had begun, Babbitt jogged down a hill, then slowed when he saw a dangling light bulb and a chalk line in the pavement. "I heard this voice out of the darkness saying, "Hey, you. Are you in the race?"
Babbitt confirmed that he was.
"Then you're done," said the voice from the dark.
The finish was somewhat anticlimactic.
"Where's the brass band?" said Babbitt. "Where's the action? Where's the celebration?"
His finishing time that year: 14 hours, 28 minutes, 33 seconds. He finished the race five more times. His personal best: 11:39:27.
The moral of the story? He told us if we start to think we are having a bad race to remember that a bad race is crossing the finish line at the same time the newspapers (which are announcing the winner of the race you are just finishing from the day before) are being delivered.
Holly was born in the Pacific Northwest and raised on milk and honey. At the tender young age of eleven she was relocated to the badlands of California. There she was repeatedly humiliated by her mother and her mother's hub cap. By 14 she moved to central California where she learned to hug trees and swim. It was also in central California that she was ordained. She would later recant all her closely held beliefs. Once of legal age she ventured to Arkansas where she met many great sages. She fell in love with a long-haired polylingual guy who was in love with alternative power and quite thrifty. They married and together trekked back to California. She's an unstoppable skeptic. She's a country girl at heart who can't bring herself to leave the City. She enjoys live theater, science, pickles, swimming, being outside, indie rock and NPR, wool socks, reading, going to the zoo, cooking, Su Doku, red wine, kites and the smell of clean laundry. She can't dance but she tries whenever she hears the song "September" by Earth Wind and Fire, even if she's in a grocery store.
Trump World
-
You buy a ticket, you board the bus, and then you discover that you're on
the wrong one. You thought you were going north, but you're going south.
This b...
Apparently, Video Games Are Good For You...
-
By John Asante Remember all those times that mother dearest would tell you
to "put down the controller, step away from the TV, go outside, and run
around,"...
