Media

Effects of newspapers, movies, television on public consciousness

by

Britches

                                                                   Where do you look for theater in Missouri?

If you venture to the Women’s Eastern Reception, Diagnostic and Correctional Center for theater, go with faith that a company of incarcerated women can produce a comedy in high theatrical style. They are a delightful troupe of sisters having fun and bringing their audience along for the ride.

Britches, their latest performance, brings to life the story of Charlotte Cushman, the bold actor of the 19th century, who shocked and thrilled audiences with her portrayal of Romeo along with her sister’s Juliet.  “When Queen Victoria saw Cushman as Romeo, she said she couldn’t believe it was a woman playing the part” (https://www.folger.edu/podcasts/shakespeare-unlimited/romeo-charlotte-cushman/).

Trailblazing the Stage: 10 Facts about Charlotte Cushman

The play Britches invents a love triangle of Charlotte (Dylan Staudette), her sister Susan (Natasha White), and the understudy Joan (Tessa Van Vlerah), as their company makes a comedy of performing the tragedy Romeo and Juliet, complete with a dark figure who threatens to upset the joie de vivre of the play.  In Britches the actors, including Wanda, the nurse (Patty Prewitt), perform the famous tragedy in rehearsal, then at an evening show, then at  an intoxicated cast party, then at the matinee the next day, then with a final celebration.

Six “Scholars” (Tara Carroll, Natasha Orender, Sandra Dallas,Kylie Shepherd, Angaline Ryan, Marie Pursley) cross the stage at convenient intervals to explain the customs and motives of the comedy, adding context and humor.  A black-cat-costumed actor (Yvette Mahan) crosses the stage occasionally or settles down at stage center to interrupt the flow of action as only a cat can.  The random interruptions add insight and lightness to the dialogue of the acting troupe as they prepare, perform and then reflect on their rendition of the play.

The original comedy-about-a-tragedy-production was written and adapted for the women of WERDCC by Courtney Bailey, who conceived it as a tribute to Charlotte Cushman. When she brought the script to the Spoken Word artists of the Prison Performing Arts company, they conceived a double tribute, not only showing the genius and boldness of the legendary Cushman, but the unique sisterhood of the incarcerated citizens of WERDCC. “I now realize that the script was waiting for the right collaborators to truly bring it to life,” Bailey commented in the playbill.

“I asked them to add their insight to this ‘Lady Romeo’s’ story. Incarcerated people who reside in a women’s facility are no strangers to playing male Shakespeare roles; in fact they may be the greatest experts on this performance practice in today’s theatrical ecosystem.”

Her instincts proved exactly right. The brassy playfulness of the women is perfectly attuned to the boldness of Cushman’s renditions of protagonists such as Hamlet, Romeo and Lady Macbeth, which delighted nineteenth century theater-goers from Boston to the British Isles. In Britches Cushman performs her most famous role as Romeo opposite her sister’s Juliet. “This bold choice further solidified her reputation as a groundbreaking actress willing to break down barriers in the pursuit of artistic excellence” (program notes).

The play celebrates the joy of an acting company first in its rehearsal, when Juliet balks at climbing the lofty stepladder to her balcony, then in the after-party of the evening performance, when a massive black cauldron is rolled out with the traditional fare of actors–beans and rice. They celebrate their modest provisions with a rousing musical tribute to “Beans and Rice,” reminiscent of a drinking song in a local pub. In the finale, the company reprises their tribute to Beans and Rice.

The play was directed by Prison Performing Arts’ own Artistic Director, Rachel Tibbets, assisted by Costume Designer Liz Henning and Set Designer Erik Kuhn.

Britches gave its only two performances on Thursday, March 14. The next Prison Performing Arts production will be 12 Angry Men, at the Northeast Correctional Center. See the PPA website for more information: https://www.prisonperformingarts.org/about-ppa.

Prison Performing Arts, the facilitator for performances like Britches, “nurtures the discipline, teamwork, and communication skills necessary for successful re-entry into society.” PPA also works in the Missouri Eastern Correctional Center, the Northeast Correctional Center, the St. Louis City Juvenile Detention Center, the Transition Center of St. Louis, the Hogan Street Regional Youth Center, and the Division of Probation & Parole – District 17.

Donations may be sent to:

Prison Performing Arts

3333 Washington Ave.
Ste. 203-B
St. Louis, MO 63103

 

​

r

​

​

​

 

 

 

by

Little Shop of Horrors

Is the sixty-three year old tale The Little Shop of Horrors a tragedy, a comedy, tragi-comedy, a farce? Yes!

But there are at least three versions of the story– a 1960 movie, 1982 musical, a 1986 revised movie musical with two endings.

All three versions have the same principal actors, the innocent, bumbling Seymour Krelborn; the sweet, victimized girl he works with, Audrey;  their irritable, materialistic boss, Mr. Mushnik; and the voracious exotic plant that consumes them all–Audrey II.

 In the ’60 original, Audrey Jr. hypnotizes Seymour into doing his bidding  . . . . The cops discover that the plant has been eating people and they chase Seymour through the streets of Skid Row. He comes back to Mushnick’s shop and tries to kill Audrey Jr. once and for all, but fails, and is himself eaten. https://widescreenworld.blogspot.com/2015/10/little-shop-of-horrors-1960-vs-1986-and.html

In the original stage musical of 1982, not only does Audrey II also kill Seymour, Audrey and Mushnick, it spreads all over the country, enticing other people the same way it enticed Seymour with promises of fame and fortune. (https://widescreenworld.blogspot.com/2015/10/little-shop-of-horrors-1960-vs-1986-and.html). The final number “Don’t Feed the Plants” suggests a world wide takeover is in progress. Yet the music tends to carry the story back toward comedy.

 

 

 

However, in the musical filmed in 1986, the grim ending of the previous versions was re-designed for the popular whim that Seymour and Audrey should fulfill their dreams and live happily ever after in suburbia. The director, Frank Oz, originally conceived the ending as gleefully hinting of plant takeover, and was bitterly disappointed with the ultimate product.

What about the latest rendition, just finishing a run in the Cincinnati suburb of Finneytown? This version offers more of the sinister take-over of Audrey, but her offspring appear as the familiar main characters sporting the flowery coronas around their heads. Everyone seems delighted with the absurd invasion of Audrey’s descendants.

However, the absurdist excitement is almost overwhelmed by the soul-grabbing solos of the leads, Audrey (Anya Revelle), singing “Somewhere That’s Green”  and Seymour (Marcus Miller) singing “Suddenly Seymour,” who give the musical a romantic updraft. We are  pulling for these two down-and-outers so much that their ingestion by Audrey II feels too tragic to be redeemed by sunny little flower buds around their heads at the end.

Does the booming-voiced (Brennen Volz) monster Audrey II become a warning against materialism and the passion for fame? Do we hear a message amidst the merriment of Little Shop of Horrors?

The finale, which retains the warning “Don’t Feed the Plants,” retains its glee, but no dire warnings. It’s a horror musical with a thin filling of caution. Even the sadistic dentist (Brady Volz) returns looking less threatening.

We noticed exceptional stage managing of props and set, organized by Jason George, and exceptional drama enhanced by spotlights under the steady hand of Karah George.  Their under-appreciated skill behind the scenes make a grand musical so much grander.

So what is it- a tragedy,  comedy, farce,  some maniacal concoction of all three?  Every performance brings a different taste of the botanical marvel, and sometimes your mood determines what you see in Audrey II.

“Life is a tragedy for those who feel, and a comedy for those who think.”― La Bruyere

 

by

Moby Dick on the Stage

To fast from strife,

from old debate

and hate;

to circumcise thy life.

(Robert Herrick,”To Keep a True Lent” )

I was surprised that Robert Herrick knew so much about our current political circumstances. How we rant and rave about issues we cannot change. Is it possible his era had some of the same provocations? Misery loves company. Thank you, Mr. Herrick.

I realize I am not alone in the cause of changing society, especially politics. I think we writers are delusional about the impact we have on human behavior, so we should all take a break and “circumcise” our lives.

 

Taking another tack, I saw an incredible theater production of Moby Dick on Thursday.

When I heard The Rep was staging a dramatic version of Moby Dick I thought, Come on, a 900-page book in a stage production? Then someone mentioned to Victoria what a great theatrical experience the play was, so we went out of curiosity.

Amazing! Herman Melville would be impressed. The adaptable set with its moving rigging and skeletal outline inside the whale,

the amazing gymnastics of climbing the rigging, the haunting music of the chorus of  Fates chanting from every corner of the stage, the lunacy of Ahab, the civility of Starbuck, the purity of Queequeg, the faithful reporting of Ishmael, the narrator. It was eerie and spellbinding.

The plot revolves around Ahab and his relentless quest for revenge on the white whale Moby Dick, who severed his leg. His obsessive rage grows with every scene. First they attack a whale with a baby nearby. The crew swings down from  the lofty masts, twenty feet above the stage.  They lower two small platforms from the rafters that serve as smaller boats that buck and sway as they attack the whale (not visible). They land the whale and the baby, which we see dismembered on the stage; an actress is suspended upside down, her layers of clothing stripped off so we can imagine the brutality of processing a whale. Don’t worry, she kept one layer on.

In another touching scene Starbuck (First Mate) shares with Ahab his desire to return home to his family with the whale oil they have secured in barrels. Ahab surprises us by recalling a wife and child he left behind. It seems he might be persuaded to return to port, but suddenly the fit of passion seizes him and he declares his determination to find the monster Moby Dick and destroy him, just as the white whale had taken his leg.

Hoping not to spoil too much, I have to describe the final scene, where the sailors are cast overboard when Moby Dick shatters the ship. A woman emerges from the back of the stage with a blue luminescent tissue wound around her. The tissue unwinds from her until the entire stage is encompassed with blue/violet shimmering silk, with one slit from her body to the reaches of stage left. One by one the sailors enter the billowing waves through the slit. They are swept off the stage as the woman backs away with the men covered under. The only survivor is Ishmael, who clings to the coffin containing the fallen Queequeg. By floating on that coffin Ishmael is eventually rescued to tell the story.

This kind of imaginative stagecraft saturates the entire production, staged in the belly of the framing whale structure.  The acting was moving, but the story was about the physical battle with the sea and the ominous singing of the three Fates, (evoking the weird sisters of MacBeth), all of which foreshadow death and defeat.

Spoke too soon, Moby Dick ends in St. Louis on February 25.

 

 

by

Differ We Must

NPR's Morning Edition co-host Steve Inskeep and his new book "Differ We Must: How Lincoln Succeeded in a Divided America."

A new book, published October 3, tells how Abraham Lincoln related to his adversaries or those who took different positions on significant issues of the day. Differ We Must by NPR host Steven Innskeep tells how disagreement was the sixteenth President’s work with opponents to forge consensus or at least workable majorities, to gain important goals before, and during, the Civil War.

You can read all about his book in interviews with NPR [https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/new-book-differ-we-must-confronts-political-division-with-lessons-from-lincoln] and from Anand Giridharadas’ Substack newsletter (profiled in the New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/06/briefing/kevin-mccarthy.html), but the gist of it is this: you have to have dialogue with your adversaries to create understanding and develop coalitions of the willing.

The title Differ We Must: How Lincoln Succeeded in a Divided America, refers to a letter Lincoln wrote to a friend who refused to oppose slavery. Innskeep cites other instances, such as working with an extreme abolitionist and with an anti-immigration follower of the Know-Nothing Party, to illustrate how Lincoln worked with both political extremes to understand and build consensus.

The relevance to contemporary politics and even to our own families, is obvious. It has become increasingly hard to listen and respect people who appear to have their facts wrong, when, of course, they just have an alternative set of facts.  The disparities in media coverage of the same stories has cemented us in contrary narratives. The discussion we need seems unreachable. And yet Giriharadas (The Persuaders ) and Innskeep argued that there is a way to consensus, if we have the patience.

Christians are as ruthless as anyone since they got into the business of politics. Many argue there is no escaping politics, and they may be right. As President Harry Truman said, “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”  How can we avoid the figurative “kitchen,”?  Do we just find our escape and stay put?

If we are in “the kitchen” (after all, a location of nourishment) we just have to take the heat.  Keep our mouths shut and listen with an open mind. As hard as that may be, it is a survival skill in this environment.  It should be taught in schools, churches, and public forums.  Remove foot from mouth and open ears.

As in many cases, Jesus anticipated this problem with the Sermon on the Mount.

46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matthew 5:46-48)

How do political Christians, dodge this teaching? Does it not apply even if you are crusading for the Truth? Wasn’t Jesus also crusading for the Truth?  He could get a little testy, but ultimately he addressed all the Pharisees’ questions. His most aggressive repartee was to ask counter questions of their questions. I can not find any case where Jesus came back with,”But you don’t get it,” after he had already responded once. He said his piece and then shut up. (Of course, his narrators could have left out the juicy dialogue).

We have plenty of successors to the Peacemakers of the Christian tradition in Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King and Harriet Tubman, as well from other traditions, Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, and Malala Yousafzai. We do not lack for examples to follow.  We just have to learn to follow.

“Differ We Must” should be our motto, along with “In God We Trust.”  If we believe the latter, we should accept the former.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

by

The Fourth Estate

The news media is often seen as a critical check on the power of the other three estates, serving as a watchdog to hold elected officials and other public figures accountable for their actions. [https://politicaldictionary.com/words/fourth-estate/]

For centuries, since the French Revolution, the media have been known as the “Fourth Estate,” meaning it was a watchdog for those in power in the other three estates: the first the clergy, the second the nobility, the third the commoners and bourgeois, and the fourth the press.

The clergy and the nobility have declined in their influence over society, while the commoners and the nobility have had a renaissance in our modern democracy.

Since the rise of Donald Trump as an authority on society and the media, the public has regarded the media as suspect, biased, and participating in corruption in the United States. Perhaps some of these claims against the media are valid, in that the leading newspapers of the country, the New York Times and the Washington Post are known to lean toward the liberal side, but inexplicably conservatives still depend on the right wing media, such as the New York Post, Fox News Network, and Newsmax as if they were reliable media because of their right leanings.

That seems like a double standard, judging media by its political stance, since the liberal media are called corrupt and biased because of their political leanings, rather than by a standard of journalism. Every media outlet that disagrees with your political view must be corrupt, not because of the content of their news and commentary, but because they disagree with you.  This approach to media criticism was initiated by former President Trump, who was known to be in close contact with Fox commentators throughout his administration.

In a study of “The Trump Administration and the Media” Leonard Downie reported that,

Some analysts have matched false statements Trump has made with what was said about the same subject at about the same time on Fox News shows that he watches. He also has retweeted false statements that he has found on Twitter, including some from right-wing conspiracy groups. https://cpj.org/reports/2020/04/trump-media-attacks-credibility-leaks/

The attacks on media have been reserved especially for the New York Times, the Washington Post, and CNN News, not on the news media in general.  These liberal-leaning news organizations have been characterized as reporting “fake news,” while the more conservative media have been quoted as fact.

In fact the ex-President gave greater access to right wing news organizations, as reported by Downie in his investigative article.

Nearly half of the 70 individual press interviews that Trump gave in 2019 were with friendly, right-leaning news organizations, including Fox News, Fox Business News, and The Daily Caller, according to the count kept by Mark Knoller of CBS News. “You can go months at a time when you see the president do interviews with only one news organization,” ABC’s Karl told me.

What Mr. Trump initiated was an attack on the liberal news media, rather than the news media in general, showing that he was attacking their journalistic slant, more than their accuracy. So when Trump railed about the “fake news media,” he was referring to the news organizations that disagreed with him.  Presidents before Trump from the Clintons to Barack Obama have complained about their news coverage, but none of them have attacked the media as the Fourth Estate per se.  Trump explained to CBS news reporter Lesley Stahl, who observed,

“You know this is getting tired [ his attack on the media] . Why are you doing it over and over? It’s boring and it’s time to end that.“

And he  [Trump] said, “You know why I do it? I do it to discredit you all and demean you all, so that, when you write negative stories about me, no one will believe you. [https://cpj.org/reports/2020/04/trump-media-attacks-credibility-leaks/]

Apparently the unfairness of these kinds of attacks is lost on many of Trump’s followers, because they agree the “news media” is biased and unreliable without including Fox, the NewYork Post, or Newsmax among the abusers of the truth. It seldom occurs to them that Trump is condemning his critics while supporting any media that give him high ratings. That itself is biased criticism.

So really the President and his co-conspirators in Congress are not trying to make a journalistic criticism of the news media, so much as discrediting their authority to criticize, and degrading their authority to check, the power of government. Instead of the Fourth Estate, the media have become the Irrelevant Estate, unable to make government accountable.  The consequences of this are well known to history’s dictators (e.g. Hitler, Stalin) whose first strategy was to disarm the media. As the late John McCain admitted on “Meet the Press,” speaking from Germany

where he was attending the Munich Security Conference [February 18, 2017)] McCain said that without a free press, “I am afraid that we would lose so much of our individual liberties over time. That’s how dictators get started.” [https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/sen-mccain-meet-press-defends-free-press-after-trump-tweet-n722831]

Instead of the Fourth Estate, the media have become the Unreliable Estate, unable to make government accountable.  The consequences of this are well known to history’s dictators, whose early strategy was to disarm the media. That’s how the media lost its mojo.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

by

Spin-meister Silenced

 . . .  prosecutors last week brought up the issue of Mr. Trump’s habit of making menacing social media posts. They drew the judge’s attention specifically to a vague but threatening message that Mr. Trump had written just one day after he was arraigned in the case.                                  {“If you go after me, I’m coming after you!” —} https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/11/us/politics/trump-judge-protective-order.html?campaign_id=60&emc=edit_na_20230811&instance_id=0&nl=breaking-news&ref=cta&regi_id=58015410&segment_id=141770&user_id=c0905f751b354fe438caeb62c91726b3

Judge Tanya S. Chutkan seriously disarmed Donald Trump with her protective order and rules for commenting on the trial in progress, which she explained on Friday.  He is not allowed to comment on evidence disclosed or to make threats, veiled or not, in his public speech.

For someone who mistrusts the media, the ex-President has always used it to spin the narrative of the accusations against him.  In issuing the protective order the judge has compromised his most potent skill.

“They want to take away my freedom because I will never let them take away your freedom,”

“Essentially, I’m being indicted for you.”

“I am your retribution.”

“I am being arrested for you.”

Within a single week, the ex-President had spun his story as an atonement narrative.  These fantasies could poison the jury pool, so the judge was within her rights to curb Mr. Trump’s language.  Whether his lawyers can curb his relentless commentary remains to be seen.

With a history of impeachments and other indictments, Mr. Trump has never been required to avoid the political play-by-play during his trials. Before the protective order he fumed about the timing of the prosecution:

“Why didn’t they bring this ridiculous case 2.5 years ago? They wanted it right in the middle of my campaign, that’s why!” Trump said in a post on his social media site, Truth Social.And, waxing historical, Mr. Trump made a somber prediction. Is this going to be the future of elections in America?” Can a president order his Department of Justice to indict an opponent just prior to an election? [https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trumps-complaints-future-us-elections-turn-ironic-rcna98753]

Undermining the public’s faith in the prominent sources of news has been Trump’s bread-and-butter since the 2016 campaign.  He has become the mouthpiece of authoritative news for a large following. Without his commentary on the progress of his insurrection trial, who will his followers look to for official wisdom.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

by

Little Shop of Class Warfare

Uptown you cater to a million jerks.

Uptown you’re messengers and mailroom clerks

eating all your lunches at the hot dog carts.

The bosses take your money

And they break your hearts.

“Skidrow” from Little Shop of Horrors

There’s always a killjoy who wants to take an innocent tale like “Jack and the Beanstalk” and turn it into a Marxist cautionary tale about a boy rejecting the capitalist exchange of goods and climbing an imposing economic ladder to slay the giant capitalist by cutting down his access route to the sky. I always say to those killers of the dream, “Stop trying to make everything about class warfare and just enjoy a fairy tale.”

As I witnessed the end of the MUNY’s delightful Little Shop of Horrors  on Wednesday night I became that Marxist killjoy. It’s not that it wasn’t hilarious and entertaining, it was that it turned the farcical movie version of the story into an ominous tale of materialistic greed and subjugation.

First there was a splendid set design of

skid row, featuring the expected signs advertising Pay-day loans, Adult bookstores, and MassageParlors. In the very middle is the innocent “Little Shop,” a flower shop that is failing in the engulfing neighborhood.  As the musical progresses signs of success pop up on the flanks of the set advertising “Audrey II” the exotic, yet ominous plant that draws customers to the little shop. The signs testify to the internal materialist compromises in the shop. The media are invited in to tell the rags to riches story and make the Little Shop famous. They tell a clearly contrived tale of success.

Next, the characters of Skidrow, especially Seymour, Audrey, Orin and Mr. Mushnik. Seymour represents the downtrodden of society, never catching a break. In the Skidrow tune portraying the setting, Seymour sings:

Oh, I started life as an orphan,
a child of the street
Here on Skid Row.
He took me in, gave me shelter, a bed,
Crust of bread and a job
Treats me like dirt, calls me a slob,
Which I am.

Seymour lives up to his “slob” self-characterization by stumbling around the Shop, destroying the merchandise and nearly losing his job.

Then there’s Audrey, the lovely but ditsy heroine, abused and maligned by her dentist/ biker boyfriend Orin Scrivello. Like Seymour her self-image has fallen into the crapper from her sad upbringing.

Nobody ever
Treated me kindly
Daddy left early
Mama was poor
I’d meet a man and
I’d follow him blindly
He’d snap his fingers
Me, I’d say “sure”

These characters have the makings of a charming romantic couple, but that is not to be.

There’s the abusive boyfriend (Orin Scrivello), characterized as a sadistic dentist (sending the profession into a tailspin), standing for the one unsympathetic character, who can succeed in this brutal society.  His fate is sealed in this moral tale.

Finally there’s Mr. Mushnik, the struggling small businessman about to close down his shop. He shows his kindness by taking in the unpromising Seymour and employing him, but his benign business has no attraction in Skid Row.  He is depressed and hardened by his lot, and turns on Seymour early in the story.

Then there’s the diminutive plant Seymour names “Audrey II.”  The growth and rapaciousness of this innocent into a giant carnivorous monster must stand for something. Since its tag line is “Feed me” we easily conclude that it associates with greed and insatiability.  The plant develops a taste for Seymour’s blood and moves on quickly to cuts of meat and human sacrifices.

I doubt I would spoil the suspense by telling you in what order the plant devours the characters.

  1. The sadistic dentist
  2. The brutalized small businessman
  3. The girl friend without self-worth
  4. The noble, sword-wielding Seymour

Audrey II grows in size and vocal power with each person consumed. The symbolism is clear: the dominant class grows by consuming the lower classes.

If  Director Maggie Burrows had stuck with the ending of the original movie of “Little Shop” I would not be such an irreverent socialist. In the movie version Seymour emerges from Audrey II, having rescued Audrey and fulfilling her dream of a “place that is Green.”

I’m his December Bride
He’s Father, he Knows Best
Our kids watch Howdy Doody
As the sun sets in the west
A picture out of Better Homes and Gardens magazine

Of course Audrey’s song drips with irony, since we know that the world of “Father Knows Best” does not exist, but the composers, Alan Ashman and Alan Menken, were content to end their horror/comedy farce with joyful irony.

Maggie Burrows was not satisfied with low-grade irony. She wanted a grotesque comedy, where Seymour and his true love remain consumed, the basso-booming Audrey II takes center stage as all the Audrey II cuttings dance in the anticipation of consuming the planet with their carnivorous appetites.

I couldn’t tell if anyone else in the audience felt a pang of disappointment, when the monster ended up victorious. We all clapped for the delightful performance of the period doo-wop music and harmonious back-up singers some referred to as a Greek chorus. They danced and sang their way into our hearts.

The upbeat tease at the top of the program read:

Expect the unexpected and get ready to feed your inner quirkiness with this hangry tale. Whatever you do, do not feed the plant!

But I’m soberly reflecting about the unnerving message implied by Audrey II’s world domination at the end.  It arouses my social conscience to ponder, ” What if Audrey II is the eventual winner? Are we living “The Little Shop of Horrors”?

Oh, stop trying to make everything about class warfare!  (he argued with himself)

by

Casey and Diana

Sean Arbuckle (left) as Thomas and Krystin Pellerin as Princess Diana in “Casey and Diana” at the Stratford Festival. Arbuckle’s character has HIV/AIDS, the symptoms of which can include Kaposi sarcoma lesions.

We came to Stratford three days early to catch the final performance of Casey and Diana, which was a heart-grabber, as billed . I was tearing up about halfway through. The ushers stood at the exits with tissue.  We were witnesses of two men dying of HIV in a Toronto hospice called “Casey,” one of the earliest providing the specialized services for terminal AIDS patients.

Sean Arbuckle, as Thomas (in photo), a huge Diana fan, is vulnerable and mercurial in a virtuoso performance of a man alternately hopeful and desolate in the final week of his life.

Thomas is motivated by the impending visit of Princess Diana  to try to survive another week. He even has visions of Diana (Krystin Pellerin)  and her wedding in extraordinary detail as to make us believe she is in his room before her actual visit.  Arbuckle’s admiration for Diana approaches idolatry and inspires him to survive. “Princess freaking Diana — that’ll make any homo smile,” he says. https://www.thestar.com/entertainment/stage/review/2023/06/03/incredibly-moving-stratford-play-casey-and-diana-captures-princess-dianas-iconic-visit-to-torontos-casey-house.html

The dread of contact with HIV in the 1980’s is dramatized by the absence of the patients’ families, alienating their loved ones out of fear.  They contrast with the determination of hospice volunteers and professionals who don protective gloves, but make constant physical contact integral to their therapy. The main set is a hospice room with two patients, the young Latino Andre and the older White patient Thomas, who checks in on Andre every morning calling out “Marco” and waiting for the response “Polo” to confirm life.

Thomas’s estrangement from his sister, Pauline (Laura Condlin), is an important subplot, dramatized by his initial refusal to even see her in his room. The healing of their relationship is tortuous to witness, but it suggests an almost miraculous intervention toward their reconciliation.  Here is where the tears begin to flow.

In an effusively positive review, the Toronto Star reflects,

. . . the play is a subtle but powerful critique of societal neglect and shaming of those with outsider status. It centres Casey House as a place that defied such othering by giving safe haven to those who had nowhere else to go. “We are here to help men with AIDS. We are here to help them die,” says Vera in a late-play speech that both opens up the character’s toughness and drills down on what the play is exploring. “It is a huge gift to give, and it is enough,” she says. https://www.thestar.com/entertainment/stage/review/2023/06/03/incredibly-moving-stratford-play-casey-and-diana-captures-princess-dianas-iconic-visit-to-torontos-casey-house.html

The play had a brief three-week opening at Stratford, but it is too good to end here. If Casey and Diana appears local to you, I recommend it strongly for its realistic, yet hopeful battle at the end of life.  It portrays the struggle of the families and the care-givers in desperate, yet redemptive relationships.

by

Incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial

Fans of Perry Mason will recall his favorite objection to DA Hamilton Burger: “That question is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial,” with which he fended off the DA’s attempt to link past behavior or associations with a present crime.

incompetent:  inadequate to or unsuitable for a particular purpose

irrelevant:  INAPPLICABLE

immaterial: of no substantial consequence : UNIMPORTANT

It sounded like three jabs to the body of Burger’s argument, and yet it seemed to say the same thing three times: “You’re off the point, old boy!”

I wish Perry was here to object to all those complaints against Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and Mike Pence, which are no answer to former President Trump’s indictments. They are a distraction from the point.

Only in a court of law can you be silenced for your irrelevance (and incompetence and immateriality).  Everywhere else we get distracted talking about whether the offenses are equivalent, whether one was intentional and the other unintentional or whether one defendant  complied and the other resisted enforcement.

None of it matters in court. You can’t say “What about (your favorite target here)?” Because that is “incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial” and the judge says “Sustained.” Ok, back to the case at hand.

That is why we love justice, especially if it doesn’t mess with our favorite politicians. It does not judge you by comparison to anyone else; it judges you by the letter of the law. And that is what seems most fair. Not whether some other offender deserves scolding and punishment. Just the case that applies to you.

But if justice does mess with your favorite politician, you need to judge that politician for what he or she did.  Not whether the politician is a minor offender and some other politician has dirty or dirtier hands.  We need to stop the slippery offender from getting off with “What about . . .?” excuses.  We need to be our own Perry Mason to decide if the attorney or offender is “incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial.”

And then we need to step back when the judge says, “Sustained.” That’s what Hamilton Burger had to do, even with all his piles of irrelevant evidence.  Because it was incompetent and immaterial.  And that was the end of his misdirection and distraction.

Let justice do its work,  and we’ll check on the “What about …?” case later.

 

 

by

Falling Water

What Frank Lloyd Wright believed about nature blending with architecture is exquisitely practiced with “Falling Water,” a contracted get-a-way home for the Edgar Kaufman family about fifty miles south of Pittsburgh. It is an amazing case of a house built right out of the bedrock of Bear Run, a forested slope outside the village of Mill Run.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the photos above you can see the bedrock and the spring that invite nature into the framework of a home. As you visit the home you see the same rock underneath the house running up to the first two floors of the house and mixing with the sandstone slabs, also quarried out of the local forest.

You see these slabs stacked up the wall around the portrait of Edgar Kaufman, the owner of the home. They are both the external and internal walls of “Falling Water,” carefully fitted to glass and window frames to keep most of the weather out while giving the inside an organic feel, actually  living in the rock of Bear Run.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Meanwhile the spring running under the home cascades from the front thirty feet into the stream below. The sound of falling water drifts up to the countless terraces, so large that the outside terraces and patios equals the inside floor footage.  The terrace outside the master bedroom opens to the enormous space above the waterfall.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The donation of “Falling Water” to the Conservancy.

 

 

 

The Kaufman Family, Edgar,Jr., Edgar Sr., Liliane

Victoria Surveying the Pottery Display in the Living Room

 

 

Of course the outside walls are layered in frameless windows opening to the forest, and the framed windows easily opened to let the air in.   The  rock, the water,  and air  truly  bring nature inside the house  as  Wright  had always  theorized  the perfect  living  area.

The four levels of the house are cantilevered one above the other. “Stone piers serve to reinforce concrete”trays, dramatically cantilevered over the stream and forming the living and bedroom walls.”

The first level consist of a giant living room, kitchen and dining room. The second floor is the master bedroom and Edgar,Sr.’s study.  The third floor is Edgar Jr.’s bedroom and study, and its winding staircase leads to the guest quarters on the fourth level.

The entire house is built into the face of a hill, recessing into the hill to make it integral with the slope of the land. At each level a large patio opens out into the forest and the spring below. The sound of falling water floats into every terrace and bedroom on the property,

Because of its total conformation to the land and resources of the land, this house deserves the recognition and admiration it has received since 1939. It is a stunning achievement, despite its going over $100k over budget.

 

Subscribe By Email

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Skip to toolbar