Blog Archives

73 Halloween, Samhain, and confused Christians

10/31/2016

I remember pointing out to some of my theatre students that the early Christian Church had established the nativity celebration in December in order to "Christianize" and counter the traditional Yule celebrations in most of Western Europe. After all, I doubt that the Romans were so stupid as to require everyone to travel to their place of birth for a census at the time of year during which travel was the most difficult (and, we know that this date was established a good while after the event took place, about mid-fourth century).

Actually, the early church did the same sort of thing with many traditional, pagan celebrations including the harvest festival known as Samhain (pronounced ˈsaʊ.ɪn/ sow-in) in the Celtic lands and by other names elsewhere. Since this was also a time for honoring ancestors, November 1 became a Christian celebration honoring the saints and became "All Saints" or "All Hallows" Day, which led October 31 to become “All Hallows' Eve,” which became Halloween. In the Church calendar, All Hallows Day was followed by All Soul's Day and the whole period was sometimes referred to as Hallowmas or All Hallows tide.

Anyway, contrary to the beliefs of some modern Christians, Halloween is NOT some sort of a day to worship the Devil, it is a time to remember honored ancestors by collecting gifts and food (“soul cakes”) as offerings for ancestors, which is the origin of "trick or treating" and it was/is a part of a Christian tradition which probably dates back at least to the papacy of Pope Gregory III (d. AD 741).

Certainly Halloween has become a VERY popular occasion for parties, decorations and fun, with few specific religious overtones for most people. In fact, I believe that it is second only to Christmas in terms of money spent on parties, decorations, etc.

Still, there is a good deal of confusion over how “pagan” or “devilish” Halloween is (I’ve found NO evidence that is has anything to do with devil “worship,” and I HAVE looked). Samhain (the Celtic celebration) is probably the best known of these earlier, pagan, fall festivals which were “Christianized” by the early church, but there are equivalent celebrations in a number of other European cultures.

Anyway, I ran across this little poem about some of the confusion about Samhain a few years ago and thought I'd post it in honor of the occasion. As you will see, it does sound confused…

Sam Hain

By Lord Fluff

Who is this guy they call Sam Hain?
I see his name in witchy books;
But when I ask my witchy friends;
They just give me the strangest looks.

He seems to be so important;
And everyone knows him but me;
Each year they throw him a party;
It sounds like THE cool place to be!

When I ask my friends what he’s like;
They all practically turn and run;
I need to get to know Sam Hain;
So I can join in all the fun!

I asked friends to introduce me;
I’ll have to introduce myself;
‘Cuz when I asked they looked at me;
As if I’m a demented elf!

So I searched the yellow pages;
I called up information too;
I just can’t find this guy Sam Hain;
I surfed the web ’til I turned blue!

I’ve heard my witchy friends planning;
And although they’ll think I’m a pain;
I’m going to crash his party;
Then I’ll finally meet Sam Hain!

Halloween is Maggi, our younger daughter’s, favorite holiday and she really goes all the way with it. This year, she was finally able to get the “Gothic dungeon” room she has wanted in her basement (with some help from her Mom and Dad – I guess I haven’t forgotten everything about building fake fireplaces and painting “rock”) and got her mother to make her the “Evil Queen” costume she wanted (with no pattern and a lot of guess work).

We think it all turned out pretty well…

LLAP (and Happy Halloween)

0 Comments

72 Seen Any Good Ones Lately? #1

10/28/2016

0 Comments

I think that I wish most of all that this election cycle was over! It’s not that I don’t care about how the election comes out, nor that I don’t think that it’s important for all citizens to vote. In fact, I think it’s their duty to vote No, it’s just that I am so tired of the negativity, the blatant lies, the bullying, the stupidity, the assumption that all voters are too stupid to do anything except believe the obviously biased half-truths and assertions (how can everyone be winning according to their information?) and the general “show-biz,” razz-ma-tazz that have become standard in campaigns this time around. I’m just fed up with this **** (fill in appropriate expletive of your choice).

So, since I do (on occasion) save jokes, cartoons and/or comic strips from the newspaper and other sources, I though I’d simply try to provide a bit of diversion from the current insanity. Maybe I’ll do it again sometime.

Enjoy!

It’s about time for Thanksgiving, which made this seem appropriate…

Being a cat lover, I liked this…

I thought this one “hurt” just a little, but it does seem to capture a good deal of truth about a lot of contemporary “comedy”…

“The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” Henry VI, Part II, 4, 2, 73

Just think, I’ve spent a lifetime seeking to find the answer to life’s questions and they were all so readily available…

Unfortunately, knowing how to find the answers doesn’t always lead to success in helping others find at least some of them…

I thought this was not the best advertising idea that Western ever had, speaking as someone with some practical experience with lighting instruments. Go on, grab that “white-hot spotlight,” I dare you…

LLAP

0 Comments

71 I just don't understand! (Part 3)

10/14/2016

0 Comments

In the last few weeks there has been considerable discussion regarding athletes (mostly football players; professional, collegiate and high school) “taking a knee” during the playing of the National Anthem at the beginning of games as a form of protest against racial injustice. This has even spread to some members of marching bands, at least in some college or high school situations. It’s been reported on news broadcasts, in newspapers and been the topic of letters to the editor, etc. Virtually all comments about this, at least that I have seen or heard, have been to the effect that it is terribly “disrespectful” to the flag, the country and, especially, to veterans. I confess that I find this confusing…

According to Wikipedia (not a great source, but convenient and often correct, at least on basic ideas), “A symbol is a sign that represents, stands for, or suggests another idea, visual image, belief, action or material entity.” The flag, and/or the National Anthem, are, therefore, symbols which stand for our nation and (one would think) for its values.

According to the Preamble of the U. S. Constitution, we are a nation which created its Constitution (statement of basic principles) “… in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,….” That seems clear enough, and seems easy to understand. The First Amendment to the Constitution forbids passing laws which restrict freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly and the right to petition for a redress of grievances. The Pledge of Allegiance states that the nation stands for “…liberty and justice for all.” These appear to be what we SAY are the values of the country.

I confess that I find it hard to believe that those values mean that it is impermissible for a group of people who feel that they have a legitimate grievance are being “disrespectful” to the flag by simply exercising the very rights which the flag/National Anthem stand for. “Ah,” you say, “but it’s “disrespectful” of the veterans who have served to defend that flag!”

I’m sorry, but I disagree. First of all, “veterans” are not, or should not be, some sort of legally separate class of citizens who are “special” because they “did their duty to protect the country.” I do believe that veterans should be honored for their service, but some of us were not asked to serve (or were rejected from serving for a variety of reasons, like being female until relatively recently) and the Constitution doesn’t provide for “classes” of citizenship based on whether one was required to serve, or not. Legally, one is simply a citizen or one is not. Being a citizen is not dependent on military service.

Of course, there is also the simple fact that the “duty” for which we should respect the veterans was, most fundamentally, to support and defend the aspirations and rights intended to allow citizens to engage in the very activities which some now are trying to define as ”disrespectful.” I confess that I fine that hard to understand.

All of this upheaval is, at least to me, very reminiscent of the anti-protest movements during the so-called Vietnam War, where it was “unpatriotic” not to support our military efforts to support a religiously minority government which had been established by an earlier, colonial power in what was, for all intents and purposes a civil war because we, preferred that government over what was apparently desired by others in that country. I remember all too clearly the armed troops on the streets of Chicago during the Democratic Convention of 1968; the deaths and injuries of Kent State, etc.

I also remember quite well the Civil Rights movement of the 1950’s and 60’s; the sit-ins, the Freedom Riders, the March on Washington and across the Edmund Pettus bridge at Selma, as well as protests against US support of the apartheid government of South Africa. These protests also were viewed as “disrespectful” by some. Of course, I find the murders, the beatings, the fire hoses, etc. used to put down these protests rather disrespectful, as well. The fact remains that free speech is messy and can stir up strong feelings, but it IS what the United States is all about.

One of my favorite quotes is from Peter Stone’s musical 1776, spoken by the character Stephen Hopkins. It goes: “. . . in all my years I never heard, seen nor smelled an issue that was so dangerous it couldn’t be talked about.” Actually, I would go a bit further and support the idea which Aaron Sorkin put in Andrew Shepherd’s mouth in The American President: “America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've gotta want it bad, cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say ‘You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man who's words make your blood boil, and who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.’” But, the fact is that this is what free speech means!

There’s another favorite quote which I don’t know the source of, as it is apparently incorrectly attributed to Voltaire, but I have found no more correct source: “I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” To me, that goes a long way to defining the spirit of freedom of speech. After all, there is no need to have a right to say only the most popular thing. That’s easy. No, real freedom of speech allows for the ideas which are NOT popular to be spoken out loud. This doesn’t mean that one has to agree, simply that opinions and ideas which differ from your own have a right to be peacefully expressed. That’s why restrictions on freedom of speech and the press are the first things established by dictators.

Given the fact that there is still injustice in the world, I don’t understand why it seems so difficult for some people, especially in a country which was created by dissenters (rebels and traitors, if one wishes to be precise), to advocate the notion that expressing a dissenting opinion is, somehow, “un-American.” To me it seems strongly within the American tradition. I’d hate to think that the current peaceful protests at football games are being rejected solely because of racist beliefs which are still alive in our society, but it is easy to see that as a possibility. I hope that it isn’t, but I haven’t been able to come up with any other explanation of what I see and hear.

Perhaps someone can explain it to me? I’d really like to know. I just don’t understand….

LLAP

0 Comments

70 Hamlet with EIGHT actors?

10/6/2016

0 Comments

I saw a production of Hamlet a couple of weeks ago, which I found intriguing, a little disturbing and rather exciting. Let me explain…

Every year, Nebraska Shakespeare (which produces two of the plays each summer in a park here in town over a period of a couple of weeks) also does a roughly month long tour of a different show aimed at, mostly, Middle and High schools. Now, it would be difficult to tour a full production to schools, given time restrictions of the school day, etc., so, obviously the performance must be cut fairly extensively. Having played at schools during my days with Theatre 65, the Children’s Theatre of Evanston, I can easily understand this and don’t have real problems in accepting this as necessary. I also don’t have any real problems with not using a “full” cast since, we are pretty sure that Shakespeare’s company probably used at least some doubling with minor characters, at least.

Still, when I heard that this production was being done in 75 minutes and with a cast of only eight actors, I confess to having some reservations as to how effective it was going to be. While I do have some difficulties with the final result, I was surprised that the production was as good as it was.

The actors, all professional (although none credited with being Equity, which doesn’t mean that they couldn’t be) were all pretty good, although the extreme cutting (an uncut Hamlet does take about four hours) did create some real limitations and the elimination, or combining, of a good many characters (only one gravedigger, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern also were the players, etc.) was something of a drawback to me, although the show did “work” reasonably well.

I think I would have enjoyed the Globe Theatre Versions Hamlet adapted by Thomas Wood Stevens for production at the Globe Theatre in San Diego in 1935 (available from Samuel French) more, but it runs about 85 pages in its script and used (in its original production) a cast of about 20, which is probably too long and requires a much larger cast. It probably would have been prohibitive under the circumstances. All things considered, the cutting, while VERY extensive, actually worked reasonably well.

On the other hand, I did have some “issues” with the production. I didn’t understand the set. It appeared to function pretty well, but it looked a great deal like a London subway (Tube) station, with a strange, elevated platform off to one side, which had a curtain hanging in it, something which I can’t imagine at a Tube stop. They even used a variation of the London Transportation logo with Elsinore across its middle, just as stops are indicated for the tube. I confess that I didn’t see how this contributed to making the play any clearer. As I say, it was acceptably functional, but it really didn’t speak to the story very well, at least to me.

The costumes were, of course, modern dress. Now, that didn’t bother me. After all, probably my favorite production of this play is the 2008 Royal Shakespeare Company modern dress production with David Tennant and Patrick Stewart (which was filmed and released in 2010, which is how I know it). And we know that in Elizabethan times plays were staged in contemporary dress and this has become pretty widely acceptable since Barry Jackson made it a common practice at the Birmingham Rep in the 1920’s.

No, my “issues” were mostly with some of the directorial (or adaptation?) choices for the production. Having Horatio played by a woman is still a bit of a “stretch” for me, although a production Steve Ayers did at Western in 1991-92 had that character played by Charity Moon to Sean Bridgers’ Hamlet and it worked quite acceptably for me. I built the set and played Osric, as I remember it (not the best role I ever played), but Steve drafted me into the cast. Still, while it can work, it bothers me, as I think Hamlet’s best buddy probably should be male, but that may just be my problem.

My biggest issue with the production was the decision to stage the “to be, or not to be” soliloquy as a shared speech between Hamlet and Ophelia. This I still can’t figure out. I suppose it may have been an attempt to “broaden” the play to be about more than just Hamlet’s issues, but I did not find it effective. The whole revenge motif I found rather strangely subdued. I don’t think that I’m just so set in my ways as to reject a differing interpretation out right, but this didn’t make sense to me.

Now, when I saw their touring production of As You Like It last year, they split up the epilogue (somewhat shortened) between the actresses playing Rosalind and Celia, so I suppose that I should have expected the possibility of some tampering with the script. Still, “To be, or not to be” is SO iconically Hamlet’s speech that I really didn’t understand this, mostly because, as I see the play, I don’t see Ophelia pondering over such questions. Her eventual madness may be understandable, given what happens to her during the course of the play, but I just can’t see how this speech works for her character.

I certainly thought the production worth my time and effort (minimal) to see and I’m glad that it is being presented across the state. I suspect that it led to a fair number of interesting discussions in English lit classes, due to the changes, but I also hope that it will lead at least some students to look more closely at the value of seeing Shakespeare performed, as it was meant to be seen and heard, not just read.

All things considered, it was an interesting way to spend a Saturday afternoon. I hope anyone reading this will have an equally enjoying afternoon someday soon.

LLAP

0 Comments

73 Halloween, Samhain, and confused Christians

72 Seen Any Good Ones Lately? #1

​71 I just don't understand! (Part 3)

​70 Hamlet with EIGHT actors?

Archives

Categories

71 I just don't understand! (Part 3)

70 Hamlet with EIGHT actors?