Thursday, September 10, 2009

More from Don Hall! (You know you want it.)

Long time readers know that one of my flaws is that I simply enjoy belligerent stupidity too much to leave it alone. Indeed, I almost savor it. Yes, I know this is wrong - and I know someday I'll be in some circle of Purgatory blogging for Isaac Butler or something to atone for my sins. But in the meantime, the flesh is weak. And my inherent love of pleasure - even this perverse form of pleasure - is strong.

So I have to go back and make some more fun of Don Hall, a.k.a. "The Angry White Guy in Chicago" (above left), with my only justification being that he keeps sending me the material himself! I was good earlier today - you have to give me credit; I didn't publish the ridiculous comment that purported to justify his previous outbursts, but soon devolved into calling me a "douche." That's right. Ouch, that really hurt, Don! Stop it, you big bully! I did at least allude to the pointlessness of protesting one's reputation for homophobia by means of a slur against women. But somehow I think that was all lost on the Chicago blogosphere's answer to Einstein.

Because the funnyman is back! I got the follow-up below earlier today:

What a complete coward. And a douchebag.

I encourage you to admit openly that your argument about Tarantino/Thomas has nothing whatsoever to do with politics and that it has everything to do with your own Deadly Theatrical tendencies of artistic taste.

I understand that you are caught up in that conundrum of being so invested into [sic] an argument that you realize is false that it’s hard to admit your error. Do it anyway. The homophobe thing is a dodge and you know it.


This is pretty good, isn't it. Like so many commenters, Hall seems to feel that if he simply repeats himself he will somehow transcend his offensiveness, or the holes in his logic. And if that doesn't happen? Well, he just repeats himself again.

Also - note the intriguing capitalization of "Deadly Theatrical" (we'll ignore the misuse of "conundrum," and the ungrammatical "invested into," for the time being). Do I sense a theory of sorts banging around in that cute little pink tutu? Yes, I think I do!

But let's leave that hobbyhorse for another ride, too. In the meantime, let's simply savor the sheer blindness of the post - what I love about it most is Hall's claim, which sounds rather like a child singing to itself in the dark, that I "realize my argument is false but can't admit my error." Uh-huh. I hate to tell Hall that in fact, I'm just getting started. I've yet to really work out the parallel between Tarantino and Reifenstahl, or - better yet - the fact that Tarantino anticipates, even invites, the parallel himself, as evidenced by the many refs to Reifenstahl in Inglourious Basterds. In short, the meme has just begun, Bozo. You ain't seen nothin' yet.

As for whether you are aware of your own homophobia - please, who cares. Likewise your dependence on reverse class snobbery (and ageism!) as replacements for thought. That's how you run your blog, obviously - it's how you went so wrong on Under Milk Wood, for instance. How could I change you? I can't, and I'm not interested in doing so. You've served your purpose as Exhibit A, now move along.

Where's Louise?

Anyone else notice that it's been awhile since we've seen Louise Kennedy's byline on anything at the Globe? I think the last time we heard from her was mid-July. I figured she might have taken August off, but when I saw a stringer named Don Aucoin covering the Lyric's opening of Kiss Me, Kate (which is, yes, charming, although I disagree with Aucoin on particulars) I began to wonder if I'd missed something . . .

[Update: via Todd Williams, we learn that Louise is on a six-month leave.)

And on a side note, via Gawker, we discover that the Times has told Globe employees that thanks to their lower paychecks, the Globe might not have to be sold. But it also still might be sold. So don't anybody get cocky.

The big picture

We take a brief time-out from our usual topics of momentous import to note that the Hubble Telescope is back in business after its billion-dollar repair last spring. This is the first image (of Barred Spiral Galaxy NGC 6217, in case you're wondering) recorded by its refurbished Advanced Camera for Surveys. More jaw-dropping imagery here. Which reminds me to also tout the wonderful website Astronomy Picture of the Day, which I used to link to often, and which also features a fantastic Hubble photo today, of the "Butterfly" Nebula NGC 6302.

Tuesday, September 8, 2009

"I'm not a homophobe, you aging queen!" Chicago's angry, dumb white guy lets out his inner bigot

What was that old Laurie Anderson line? "Oh boy, I said, right again?" I've been feeling like that quite a bit recently, as I've skirmished with various Quentin Tarantino fans around the web. My thesis on Tarantino, as you may recall, was that his aesthetic of torture and vigilantism might have primed us to accept the torture regime of Dick Cheney - confirmation of that idea came quickly, in various right-wing blogs applauding the film's politics (a typical line: "Tarantino has a message for everyone . . . enhanced interrogation works.") Meanwhile the Atlantic Monthly fretted over what the movie's sadistic, empowered Jews might mean for the Palestinians. Quentin apparently has something for everyone.

Most Tarantino fans, of course, just kept happily watching the torture and munching their popcorn. But some have been actually irritated by anyone pointing out that what they were doing was a bit like sliding into a red-velvet seat next to the Führer at the premiere of Triumph of the Will (excerpt below) and telling themselves, "Hey, it's only a movie!"



Because after all, it was only a movie, wasn't it? (That's what Leni Reifenstahl always said!)

No one's been angrier, however, than the eponymous Angry White Guy in Chicago, blogger Don Hall (above left), who has been tangling with me, in a rather discombobulated fashion, here.

Hall's "arguments," such as they were, ran along the following lines:

"I believe that Great Art asks questions that can be interpreted a variety of ways and I see Leftist interpretations of "Basterds" as valid as Rightwing views [sic]. That's why I love Tarantino."

Uh-huh. Now I'm not making that up, that's really what he wrote. Great Art. Shakespeare. Rembrandt. Quentin Tarantino. Yesssssss. Sensing a strong streak of inner stupid in Hall, I pressed on, and got huge geysers of idiocy for my pains:

You compare Tarantino's work to a recognized Nazi Propagandist yet won't admit you are then placing it upon the same cultural and political pedestal. You say it isn't "art" because we're all of a different generation than you - what're you - 70? Because I'm 43 and I think the man is a filmic genius. (Just btw, I'm only a few years older than Hall, and perhaps the only really interesting thing about Inglourious Basterds is Tarantino's seeming identification with Riefenstahl!]

Now I couldn't follow that last bit, either, but there was more wackiness to come - and things took a turn for the worse once I began to look around his site. Because, of course, if someone declares that he can perceive Quentin Tarantino is "Great Art" than you're kind of curious about what else he might think is "Great Art."

This search was not edifying. Immediately I came upon Hall's review of a Chicago production of Under Milk Wood, in which he compared the Dylan Thomas classic to the "oozey, drippy unending sweetness of Hummel figurines and commemorative plates." Hall went on to apparently try to ape one of the twentieth century's greatest poets thus:

Anger Angryson and the Devil Vet saunter,
like two patrons of the Arts, the Theatrical Arts,
with their words and actions and motivations, costumes,
sets made of wood and rope and paint,
curtains, stools, steps and craft,
into the Storefront Theater, eager for an evening out.

The Actors, filled with Joy, Nerves, Sweat, and the Fulfillment
of a House Sold Out
take the stage slowly and with method, like
Cats or Slow Birds on the Prowl for Sustenance
and Begin the Play That is Not a Play
but a long series of behaviors described
and lists of details and metaphors and poetic statements.


Uh - what? Here's a stretch of Under Milk Wood, that I guess Hall imagines he is parodying:

You can hear the dew falling, and the hushed town breathing.
Only your eyes are unclosed to see the black and folded town fast, and slow, asleep.
And you alone can hear
the invisible starfall, the darkest-before-dawn minutely dewgrazed stir
of the black, dab-filled sea where the Arethusa, the Curlew and the Skylark,
Zanzibar, Rhiannon, the Rover,
the Cormorant, and the Star of Wales tilt and ride.

Listen. It is night moving in the streets, the processional
salt slow musical wind in Coronation Street and Cockle Row,
it is the grass growing on Llaregyb Hill, dewfall, starfall,
the sleep of birds in Milk Wood.



Dylan Thomas.

Pretty wonderful, huh. James Joyce might have had a quarrel with it, but I don't.

So okay, Don Hall doesn't have an ear for poetry, or a hand for it, either (to him, the play's "beautiful language" is like being "beaten in the face with a thesaurus"). But he also doesn't seem to have a brain: "Baby, this shit is like staring at a beautiful Hummel figurine for 90 minutes," he insists, even though almost nothing in Under Milk Wood is sentimental or cloying in any way. Then again, he also seems to imagine that Dylan Thomas is Irish! Obviously he shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a theatre, and I hope no one's wasting press tickets on him.

But back to Tarantino. See the problem for Hall's "Tarantino is Art" argument is that in his Dylan Thomas review, he reveals that he doesn't know art from a hole in the ground. This seemed to me pertinent, so I brought it up, and that's when things got really interesting:

Given that you have no more credential than I, you can stuff [that] up your lofty ass . . . why not just own up to the fact that your argument about "Basterds" is merely one of an effete poo-pooing the poor taste of a filmmaker [you despise] rather than all of your nonsense political right wing-sponsored horseshit?

I can just as easily make the claim that you are put off by Tarantino and love the nuance of Thomas because Thomas satisfies your Deadly Theatrical notions of what art should be rather than what art is, you aging queen.


Again, yesssss. Readers of this blog no doubt remember that one of my secondary points about Quentin Tarantino is that his fans tend to be homophobic. And what was that line from Laurie Anderson? "Oh boy, right again!"

Harold and Kumar Run the NEA; or at least Kumar does

Lee Rosenbaum (a.k.a. "culturegrrl"), who is hardly a Republican tool, reports a "creepy" phone call organized by White House "Office of Public Engagement" Associate Director Kalpen Modi (who looks all of 16 at left) that sounds similar to the call reported by Patrick Courrielche (and picked up by the Wall Street Journal). As I said before, the time for the Obama administration to stop this "arts czar" meme in its tracks is right now. [Note: please read the comments!]

Is Stratford better than Broadway?, Part I


Brian Bedford as Lady Bracknell.

My recent trip to the Stratford Festival confirmed what I'd already heard via the Web - new Artistic Director Des McAnuff had consolidated, and perhaps extended, the artistic achievements of his inaugural year (which had been been marked by the collapse of a short-lived artistic "triumvirate"). What I saw on Stratford's stages last summer led me to opine that of those three contenders, McAnuff seemed the best man for the top job - so I was happy to take this season as confirmation of that hunch. What's striking about the Festival now is its consistency - under the previous artistic director, Richard Monette, the company hit one or two out of the park, reliably, every year, but each season dropped a few bombs, too. But this time, as last, even the weakest production I saw (Phèdre) was intelligently, if misguidedly, produced, and the acting company struck me as stronger across the board than ever before (perhaps because McAnuff has skimmed some of the cream from the nearby Shaw Festival).

Of course perhaps I just missed the bombs this year (word was not good, I admit, on Macbeth), but the season boasted at least three proper smashes - Brian Bedford's The Importance of Being Earnest, Colm Feore's Cyrano de Bergerac, and an electrifying revival of West Side Story, all of which I caught; meanwhile friends who opted for A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum over Cyrano (they were in the same time slot our weekend) proclaimed it a witty hoot (despite having lost its original lead, Stratford stalwart Bruce Dow). I also enjoyed an ambitious production of the more-rarely-done-than-you'd-think Julius Caesar, which proved flawed, but still worthy, as well as a lavish, inventive production of Ben Jonson's Bartholomew Fair that almost succeeded in putting the play's obscurities over. More mottled, but still intriguing, were a new production of Three Sisters (directed by Martha Henry) and a revival of Zastrozzi, an early work by Canadian playwright George F. Walker.



First, the hits. Brian Bedford's production of The Importance of Being Earnest (above), felt at times almost textually definitive, although its pace was perhaps too leisurely (and its Algernon was only adequate). Bedford not only directed but took the role of the imperious Lady Bracknell - he approached the part utterly seriously, however; his Bracknell was no dragon lady in drag, but instead proved a closely observed, delicately scaled skewering of Tory insanity. The rest of the cast was nearly as good, led by Ben Carlson's tormented Earnest/Jack and Sara Topham's breathlessly blank Gwendolen, who were themselves sometimes outshone by supporting players Sarah Dodd and Stephen Ouimette, who made the best Miss Prism and Reverend Chasuble I've ever seen. But what was striking was Bedford's consummate comprehension of every subtlety in the play - as evidenced by the superb set from Desmond Heeley, which neatly tied together a kind of Gorey-esque, end-of-empire morbidity with a strange sense of false spring. Bedford is of course widely known as one of our leading stage actors, but I don't think his accomplishments as a director have been lauded nearly enough. Over the years, Bedford has directed the best Lear and Othello I've been lucky enough to see, as well as the best Waiting for Godot, believe it or not, along with sterling versions of Coward's Private Lives and Present Laughter. So I'll say it out loud, just so someone somewhere has said it once: Brian Bedford is among the best directors working in America.

Another production which had a claim to the title "definitive" was Cyrano de Bergerac, featuring Colm Feore, a former Stratford leading man who left to make a name for himself in Hollywood. Feore didn't quite attain stardom, but did appear in several blockbusters, before notoriously stealing a New York production of Julius Caesar right out from under its under-trained American stars. At any rate, he has now returned (along with other Stratford stars like Geraint Wyn Davies and Christopher Plummer, who'll be back next summer for The Tempest), with the clout to pick his own projects, and he's chosen the perfect vehicle to showcase his strengths in Cyrano. Feore was never the most interior of actors, but his physical gifts are superb (and he needed them all in this three-hours-plus lead performance) - and he's been technically trained to a level that's almost unheard-of today. All this, plus the crafty intelligence of a born actor, and the thoughtful direction of Donna Feore (his wife!) led to a Cyrano that never devolved into grandstanding or ham, but grew steadily in emotional stature over the course of the play; by its finish, this cynical old critic was misty-eyed, and many in the house were weeping.


Colm Feore as Cyrano, with Tom Shara as Christian.

The rest of the Cyrano cast was solid, but only occasionally sparkling (although the reliable John Vickery was a standout), but Feore was matched by a truly smashing physical production, which came complete with pyrotechnics, convincing swordplay, full moons of course, and even autumn leaves drifting down into the crowd. It was the kind of old-fashioned, satisfying spectacle that lets its audience out into the night in a happy buzz of romantic amazement - and utterly eclipsed the last Cyrano I saw, with Derek Jacobi in New York.


The dance at the gym from West Side Story.

But then "better than New York" was what you also heard about another show, Gary Griffin's restaging of West Side Story. (The same comparison was whispered a few years ago about Stratford's South Pacific, too, but this time the murmur has grown to a chorus.) To be honest, Griffin, of the Chicago Shakespeare Theatre, has embellished West Side with a few unwanted accoutrements: having a young, modern-day boy wander through the proceedings to warble "Somewhere" like some second coming of the promised Obama-child, for instance, was a little dumb, and a little much. But generally Griffin colored energetically within the spectacular lines of the great original, and choreographer Sergio Trujillo expertly retooled Jerome Robbins's famous choreography for the Festival's thrust stage. And the cast all but tore through the material, dancing and singing its heart out, led by Paul Nolan's amazingly athletic Tony (his hand-over-hand up Maria's balcony was a hoot), Chilina Kennedy's refreshingly earthy, at times even knockabout, Maria, and Jennifer Rias's happily snappy Anita. West Side Story is rarely revived because of its intense demands - Bernstein at times pulls his vocal lines up into operatic territory, while Robbins pushes the dancing past the brink of ballet - and yet the pay-off when a production is firing on all cylinders is intense, and immense; it is probably the single most exciting musical ever written, and Stratford more than delivered its inherent thrill.


The climax of Bartholomew Fair.

Meanwhile, on its smaller Tom Patterson Stage, the Festival was mounting a piece nearly as challenging: what may be the North American premiere of Ben Jonson's Bartholomew Fair, a sprawling Jacobean hootenanny that cynically casts a large cast of Puritans into the labyrinth of the eponymous fair, a notoriously debauched public spectacle in Jonson's day. Unsurprisingly for this particular playwright, everyone pursues their particular "humour" (or obsession), which results in adventures that reveal (or confirm, in the case of the earthier types) their true natures (Justice Overdo, played by Tom McCamus, at left, receives a particularly brutal comeuppance).

What's unusual for Jonson, however, is how in the end he forgives his many hypocrites and fools; Bartholomew Fair may be cruel, but the playwright skips his usual final damnations for a surprisingly touching moment of (unlikely) community, that reads as his own sleazebag version of a Shakespearean comic climax: the humiliated Justice Overdo, at last converted to an appreciation that he is, in the end, mere "flesh and blood," invites the bawds, pimps and whores to dinner at his home (!), an invitation which is enthusiastically accepted.

This proved a hearty dénouement to what was admittedly a brilliant production, the best version of any Jonson play I've seen. Director Antoni Cimolino (who also administers the Festival) poured resources into the project, and cast many of the company's leading actors in key roles (backed by up-and-coming youngsters from the Birmingham Conservatory). The results were studded with brilliant performances (from Lucy Peacock, Juan Chioran, Cliff Saunders, Kelli Fox), and Cimolino's stagings and musical interludes were clever, apt, and fearless (I won't soon forget Peacock, locked in a grotesque fat suit, spreading her legs and fanning her privates - likewise the jar of communal urine that gets tossed about onstage is seared into my memory).

Still, despite just about the best production it could ever hope to receive, the play eventually seemed to be grinding on, as in my opinion Jonson always does. The trouble is that he's such a schoolmarm - a dirty-minded schoolmarm, true, but a schoolmarm nonetheless, and one locked in a "humour" as intense as that of any of his characters. And despite the final pseudo-Shakespearean flourish, the play is nothing like those of the Bard, who is continually opening up new perspectives on his characters and even his plots - while Jonson relentlessly drives home, through a zillion variations, a single anti-moral we long ago figured out for ourselves (it's telling that he wraps the proceedings with a caustic puppet-show; that's what he's been writing all along). So while I had to admire this virtuosic production, I have to admit I was happy when Bartholomew Fair finally folded for the night.

Tomorrow: the more problematic Stratford productions.

Sunday, September 6, 2009

So what do we do as Harvard makes itself ridiculous?

Sigh. We'd already adjusted to the news that Harvard had opened a disco (and bar), the better to, um, mount another franchise of ART Artistic Director Diane Paulus's The Donkey Show (at left). Now comes word that the world's self-proclaimed "greatest university" is also launching a Ralph-Laurenesque clothing line (sorry, "men's collection," at right). Gee, I guess that endowment must really be hurtin' - Harvard's now hawking drinks and doing patchwork to make ends meet! I suppose at this point I'm supposed to say something like "What next?" But I don't really want to know what's next.