Blog Archives

#14 Holiday Greetings

12/19/2014

As I write this, it’s the middle of Chanukah, the Winter Solstice (Yule) is upon us and Christmas is almost here. Of course, this has been a time of significant celebration in many spiritual traditions for centuries: there was the Rural Dionysia in classical Greece, the Saturnalia in Rome, the Feast of Fools during medieval Europe, a festival in honor of Isis in ancient Egypt and, of course, whatever went on at Stonehenge which is aligned with both the Summer Solstice sunrise AND the Winter Solstice sunset.

Clearly, there’s something about the winter solstice which has stirred strong feelings in humans for centuries. I suspect this has something to do with why so many spiritual traditions have (and have had) celebrations about this time of the year.

And, perhaps not surprisingly, many (most) of these various ceremonies and celebrations, in some fashion, honor the renewal of life. There is a certain logic about this, I suppose, the days start getting longer, there is a reawakened hope for warmer weather and the coming of the planting season, and there is a recognition that this year’s harvest is over. Yes, there may be, generally, even worse weather to come. Still, there is that hope…. The days ARE getting longer, “… the sun’ll come out tomorrow!”

I write this because I want to wish all of my readers my best wishes at this festive season of the year. The very fact that this season has been a part of so many religious traditions for so many centuries is just another reason for us to appreciate that the things which separate us are, actually, few and the things we humans have in common are many.

This is a thought to which I may return during the New Year, but, for the next couple of weeks, I’m going to focus on family and friends and the enjoyment of the season in my new home. I confess that I often think of my many friends from “long ago and far away,” and I wanted to take this opportunity to wish them the best of the season, no matter how they may choose to celebrate it. I hope that you have a chance to rest, relax and renew with family and friends.

I’ll be back next year….

0 Comments

#13 Shows I've Seen Recently

12/9/2014

0 Comments

In the last few days I have had the chance to see two theatrical productions which I found interesting, so I though I’d write a few words about them. One was NBC’s broadcast of Peter Pan Live on TV and the other was the Omaha Community Playhouse production of their adaptation of A Christmas Carol. Both had points worthy of comment, I thought.

The NBC production, I have to admit, I did not watch closely. This was, mostly, because I found it rather boring, so I have to admit that my mind wandered a good deal. I do want to applaud NBC for doing this as I’d like to encourage folks other than PBS to make an attempt to deal with broadcasting live theatre at least occasionally, but I didn’t find this production particularly exciting. I think my largest complaint was that it lacked a sense of real commitment on the part of the cast. I felt that I was always aware that these folks seemed conscious of the fact that they were “acting,” so there wasn’t a sense of their really “becoming” the characters, even though I don’t think a lot of classic musical comedy requires the same sense of reality which one would like to see in more serious drama. Let me explain…

The song, “I’ve Gotta Crow,” is all about Peter bragging about his cleverness, etc. I’m giving my age away, but when Mary Martin did it, there was a really brash cockiness about the song which I enjoyed and thought highly appropriate. By the way, I dug out the VHS copy of the broadcast of THAT production which I had taped and watched it, to refresh my memory and I remembered this correctly. In the recent production, I felt they were just saying (singing) lines. In fact, I sensed a good deal of the “it’s really silly to have us grownups doing this little kid’s story” kind of attitude which I find to be the death knell of this sort of material. I don’t think that the story of Peter Pan (in any of its forms) is just for little kids. While children can enjoy it, it’s really for the child in all of us. It recalls the wonder and magic of being a child. It wouldn’t have been as successful (as a book, play, musical and movie) as it has been for over a hundred years if it was “just a kid’s story.”

I think this represents the sort of attitude which we used to call “talking down to the kids” during my days doing children’s theatre and it seemed to permeate this production. I’ll admit that probably the most difficult bit in the show is the scene where Tinker Bell drinks Peter’s poisoned “medicine” and can only be saved by having people clap to show that they believe in fairies. This scene CAN work, but only if we (the audience) can really believe that Peter cares and it matters. I didn’t get this from this production. Yes, I have seen Mary Martin and Cathy Rigby do this part (in recorded versions) and I was involved with a production of the original play done by Theatre 65 – The Children’s Theatre of Evanston, IL before I started teaching at Western Carolina. The show CAN work, but it isn’t just “cute,” it’s good theatre and demands the same sense of real commitment as any other show.

By the way, you may be asking if I believe in fairies. Of course I do. Tinker Bell is as real as hobbits, Hogwarts, Hamlet and Santa Claus. My brain may try to tell me they are fiction, but my heart tells my brain to shut up and believe.

I confess that I also had a problem with the rather “acid-trip” treatment of Neverland and the “politically correct” transference of Tiger Lily and her tribe to some sort of generic “aborigines.” Barrie’s characters are “Indians.” They partake of the stereotypical, dime - novel, “cowboys and Indians” image which was a part of Western culture well before the notion of “Native Americans.” I understand the objections to calling these people “Indians.” I recognize that this is an outdated awkwardness in the script, but the change which was made for this production didn’t work for me. Of course, I have a problem with the entire notion of “political correctness” here because, in every other context, the word “native” simply refers to one born in a particular place. I can trace some of my ancestors back to arriving in North America in 1620 on the Mayflower, so at least part of my family has lived here for 8-10 generations, but we aren’t supposed to call ourselves “natives” because some other group’s ancestors got here earlier which means that they are the only ones who can do so? I haven’t heard of any evidence any group of people developed on the North American continent independently of the appearance of humankind elsewhere, so it would seem that none of us are really “native” to this continent, or we all are, but that’s another issue, which I won’t get into any further. The point here is that this change just didn’t work for me in the context of this script.

There was also the fact that they seemed to have trouble deciding whether they were making a movie or doing a stage production which just made this production a less than really satisfactory experience for me. The CGI Tinker Bell was just a bit too filmic and “over the top” for me to find acceptable. The earlier videos I’ve seen are, quite frankly, recordings of stage performances and I thought they worked pretty well. I hope that NBC will continue this tradition, but I hope that they will be willing to trust the material they choose a bit more, and trust their audience to understand that there is a difference between theatre and motion pictures. I won’t say one is better, but they aren’t the same. By the way, I enjoyed last year’s NBC production of The Sound of Music a good deal. I didn’t think it was great, but I did think it was competent and credible as theatre. I wish I could say that I thought the same of this year’s presentation.

On the other hand, the Omaha Community Playhouse’s production of A Christmas Carol was a lot of fun. The adaptation used is, I believe, an original one and seemed a bit too heavy on emphasizing the “Christ in Christmas” aspects of the story than I think was necessary. Yes, Dickens story DOES take place at Christmastime, but it’s about Scrooge’s reevaluation of his life and values, not about the Nativity. Anyway, I found the use of so many traditional Christmas carols well done, but a bit more than necessary. However, the show was quite well produced with a lot of well-handled special effects (rather needed for this story) and was, generally, pretty well performed.

I may be giving it a bit of a break because I did see an early evening performance after a Sunday matinee, so the cast was probably a little tired. I know how tough a two-a-day schedule can be no matter how hard you try and to do it with big cast (including fairly small children) is hard under any circumstances, but especially at the end of a six show weekend (Wed. – Sat. nights and 2 shows on Sunday) and three weeks into a five-week run. I’m not really surprised the show seemed a bit tired, but I was a little disappointed.

Of course, the fact is that after doing the show for 38 years, it’s probably hard to work up the same sense of enthusiasm that was there once. Yes, I believe that there have been changes to the script, sets, effects, etc. and certainly there are some cast changes every year (although some folks have played the same role a number of times), but I’ve noticed the same sort of thing in the “outdoor hystericals” which I have seen. I don’t think that means they shouldn’t be done, though, and tradition is an important part of both community and theatre. I could also quibble about the Little Boy Blue and Bo-Peep “dolls” (toys from the Toy Shop on the street set) which were introduced into the show in order to do a dance, which seemed a bit too much like they were lifted directly from The Nutcracker, but, overall, the show was a lot of fun. While I wouldn’t call this production an unqualified smash, I didn’t find it boring and I’m not sorry to have seen it.

I think I’ll reserve any overall judgment of this theatre organization until I’ve seen another production, or two. They’re doing Spamalot in the early summer, which I am really looking forward to seeing. I hope it is up to my expectations.

0 Comments

#12 The Right of Censorship?

12/4/2014

0 Comments

I saw an interview with Meryl Streep the other morning on GMA relating to her appearing in the movie version of Into the Woods, which will come out this December. This got me to thinking that this was a show I don’t know very well, although I do have a copy of the original cast recording and I do have a video of it which I recorded off of the air on VHS somewhere. (I may have to see if I can convert that to a DVD sometime.) Anyway, I looked up the new movie online and ran across references to plot changes for the movie credited to demands from the Disney people, who are widely condemned for changing all sorts of things into a “Disney version.” That sounded a bit like censorship to me. That led me to do some thinking about censorship, and the results surprised me a little.

Most people who know me know that I am a strong supporter of the First Amendment. I agree with the character of Stephen Hopkins in 1776, when he says, “… in all my years I never heard, seen nor smelled an issue that was so dangerous it couldn’t be talked about.” I feel much the same way about the First Amendment right of freedom of religion. Short of living sacrifice, torture or physical harm being caused to an unwilling participant, I’m not sure that there’s much of anything that I would not permit in the context of religious worship. Questions would have to be resolved, however, as to what constitutes actual religious worship, and that’s where it can get tricky. Still, I think freedom of religion means ALL religions AND the right to choose not to have a religion, but that may be getting into another issue. To return to freedom of speech….

I think that those of us who condemn “censorship” should give some strong consideration to the fact that we, individually, engage in it with some frequency. In fact, it seems to me that the right of “freedom of speech,” carries with it the corollary right to censor that which we don’t approve of. The key to this, however, is that, if you censor my ability to encounter ideas of which you may not approve, then you are violating my right to freedom of speech (that is, to engage in discussing whatever ideas, etc. I wish, as long as I am doing no demonstrable harm or endangering others by doing so). Yes, theatre people, more than most, should be aware that there ARE limits on freedom of speech – yelling “FIRE!” in a crowded theatre being the classic example, but the advocation of the violent overthrown of the government is another common one.

The reality is, however, that we do choose what ideas to listen to through our choices of what TV shows to watch, books or magazines to read, movies to see, churches to attend, etc. Is this censorship? I think one could correctly suggest that it is a form of censorship, but, at the risk of sounding like Mitt Romney, though, it’s what I’d call “self-censorship,” which is quite a different thing from what I’d call “real” censorship. People are, automatically, drawn to support certain ideas and beliefs with which they agree, so they watch TV, read books, see movies, support political candidates, attend churches, etc. which practice (or at least preach) those ideas. I have to admit that I do this same sort of thing, if for no other reason than the fact that I can’t participate in EVERY discussion, although I do try to make some attempts to see all sides of the picture. That is probably the most important point – while I may not agree with a lot of the folks on FOX News (for example), I think they have a right to have and express those opinions, no matter how misguided I might think they are.

What I would call “real” censorship, however, seems all too common an idea in our society. That’s the notion that only those ideas which I (whoever the “I” is in the case involved) support should have the right to be heard. I believe that’s a true violation of the whole idea of the First Amendment. YOUR right to censor the ideas you wish to listen to, support, etc. in your own life, should not affect MY right to consider alternatives if I wish to do so. Unfortunately, all too many religions, political groups and all sorts of organizations don’t seem willing to accept this idea. To me, this seems truly Un-American, as it seems to violate the rights of the rest of us.

How does this relate to the idea that the Disney Company was, apparently, concerned about at least some of the rather “adult material” in the Into the Woods script? (By the way, Sondheim doesn’t seem too upset about the changes that were actually put into the movie, according to what I have read.) I think the point is important that, first of all, the creators were under no obligation to sell anyone the rights to the work if they thought that their material was going to be altered in ways of which they didn’t approve. I think one can argue that by selling the rights to use the material, the seller has granted the right to the purchaser to alter it along agreed upon lines. Just because we (or I) would prefer to have the material used only in ways we approve, doesn’t alter the right of the creator to sell the rights to it. After all, it’s his/her material; it doesn’t belong to us. The creator owns it. That’s the nature of intellectual property rights. Yes, we might wish that the creator hadn’t allowed the material to be altered (or otherwise used) in ways which we don’t prefer, but no one has forced the creator to sell those rights.

I see this as an important difference. Censorship, as I see it, is the denial of the right of the creator to control the use of his/her material as he/she sees fit, usually by the refusal to allow it to be used, published or circulated, regardless of the creator’s desires. I find that offensive to a much greater degree than the creator entering into a contractual relationship which allows for the alteration of the material along agreed upon lines. After all, the holiday season is full of examples where religious, or popular, material is used for purposes which have nothing to do with the reasons for which that material was created.

The music for Handel’s Messiah, for example, is in public domain, but that doesn’t make using it to sell toys, or other stuff, very tasteful. I also don’t care for using the US flag to promote one’s used car lot, or implying that anyone who doesn’t support your particular political opinions lacks “patriotism.” After all, the United States is a country which was founded by traitors, who became “our patriotic founders” only because they got to write our history books.

There is also the fact that we can refuse to buy products or otherwise support companies or people who use material, or express ideas, which we don’t support. If I don’t like Chick-fil-A’s attitude towards gay people, I don’t have to patronize their stores and the same is true of other businesses with political/social positions I don’t agree with. I am reminded of the famous Montgomery Bus Boycott, which had an important impact on the civil rights movement. Those people weren’t so much denying the bus company the right to insist on segregating some people to the back of the bus as they were simply saying that they wouldn’t do business with it as long as it did so. That’s not really censorship, although it could, and in the case of the bus boycott, did, lead to changes in both company policy and law.

I oppose censorship as strongly as I know how, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t have the right to take (and advocate) peaceful, legal actions by which I can demonstrate my lack of agreement. If I don’t like the idea that the Disney Company and Sondheim have made changes to the Into the Woods script, I don’t have to give them my money by purchasing a ticket. That’s not really censorship, as it doesn’t deny them their rights, it’s just a form of “civil action” expressing my disapproval of those changes.

Personally, I think it’s likely that I will see the movie. It’s got a good cast and I’d like to see what they’ve done with the show. I fully expect to enjoy it, but I don’t think I have the right to deny them the right to make agreed upon changes in their material, even if I would prefer that they hadn’t done so. That really would be censorship.

0 Comments

#14 Holiday Greetings

#13 Shows I've Seen Recently

#12 The Right of Censorship?

Archives

Categories