Macbeth of the What, Now?

The question of why our show was called Macbeth of the Oppressed has come up several times, from several different quarters.  There was no evident reference to the work of Augusto Boal, and the idea of a near-future setting/forces of political correctness that showed up in some of the initial advertising flavor/promotion materials had fairly well evaporated by the time we got to rehearsals.



Now, I was simply an actor in this show, and the question was not addressed at length in the rehearsal room, at least not in my presence, but my thoughts on our arguably oblique title boil down to race, gender, and sexuality as they are presented/performed in civic and military life.



We live in a time and place where there is at least some kind of appetite for diversity in the world of creating theater. And while this impulse does intersect with the population in general, there is a decided lag in the public sphere.  We are still waiting for a female head of state in this country, and there are precious few out queer leaders of governments or military branches anywhere in the world.



Note that those links refer to positions held within the last single-digit number of years.  Note at the same time that some of the forms of oppression inherent in that fact would seem to have been absent, in some important ways, in the ancient world.  I contend that the title of our show asks what that might tell us about the concepts of 'progress,' 'power,' and, not least, 'oppression.'



And that's what I have to say about that.

Also, since we're on the subject of witches, Happy Halloween!

Last from London

Well, for now anyway...

One last photo montage video from London.  It's a little longer than the others, but it's split into two parts, so that may help.  Think of it as an A Side and a B Side.

I had to resort to YouTube for this, but I was able improve the resolution a bit.  Enjoy.

A lot of this is pretty self explanatory - don't think you need me to say much about Big Ben, Westminster, the Houses of Parliament, or Richard the Lionheart.  I do want to mention, especially for the Rodin fans out there, the juxtaposition of the Burghers of Calais in the shadow of Parliament (as opposed to casts I've seen at the Rodin Museums in Paris and Philadelphia, and the Metropolitan Museum in New York, all of which I have since found were cast after this one in London).  The placement in Victoria Tower Gardens is poignant in that these French business leaders and legal authorities are shadowed by one of the most important legislative structures in the Western World; and it calls to mind their story - offered as a sacrifice to save the citizens of Calais from Edward III's siege of their city.  (Remember Edward III's hunting palace from an earlier post, and the last video?)

It's worth mentioning are a couple of light art pieces from the Tate Modern that were as photogenic as they were engaging:

• Lis Rhodes' Light Music was the setting for the shots that come near the end of the first song.  It was part of the Tanks portion of the Tate Modern - which is amazeballs and you should definitely go there.  I think that Light Music has closed up and moved out of the space, but we were lucky to catch it while we were there.  The projectors practically dared you not to walk in and interact with the light.  Luminous and irresistible. 

• The sequence about halfway through featuring two light tables in the room with white walls is made up of shots of an Alfredo Jaar piece called Lament of the Images.  He's looking at the way people can be so saturated with media images (and words) that they can be blinded by the excess: so many images flood ones view that one stops seeing the content of what is actually being shown.  That blindness is revealed in that installation (as I interpret it) by the light that floods the room as the light tables spread apart (the tables become a light source, illuminating the people, objects, and walls themselves, but the light itself ceases to be an object of attention), and conversely by the darkness that pervades when the tables close in together (the beams of light become focal, but the darkness literally prevents one from seeing around it).  Beautiful, simple, this piece had a powerful, magnetic draw, and I also enjoyed the lucky arrival of a school group when I went back into the room to grab these shots.

Also part of the Tanks was Suzanne Lacy's The Crystal Quilt.  My photographs don't remotely do justice to the complex power of that brilliantly feminist activist piece [which had the added interest, to me, of having originated in Minneapolis, a city (and a landscape) dear to my heart, woven into this contemporary art exhibit in London].  The video embedded in that link does a better job, but if you come across an exhibition of The Crystal Quilt anywhere, you really owe it to yourself to check it out.

And I can't sign off without mentioning the shots from the Churchill War Rooms - including the color-coded phones, his cabinet meeting room, and the map room complete with a caricature of Hitler penciled into the middle of the Atlantic.  Fascinating. 

And then undercutting any sort of heightened thoughts or reflections on the living memory of War in London, and how vastly it differs from a sense of war in New York, we have shots of the Sherlock Holmes pub which I took for my Sherlock-fan nephew, Mols getting ready for her kayak final test in her wet suit, and shots of our time in Shoreditch/High Street.  All of which was fantastic!

As for the music: why can't Rudie fail?  Just because.

Ask. Tell. It's cool.

No, really. It's cool.

Nicely done.

Life in These United States

Remember Bradley Manning?




No? He's the enlisted serviceman who was at the front of that other Wikileaks scandal, way back in May. Did you know that he's been incarcerated ever since? In fact, he's what the Army calls a "Maximum Custody Detainee," and he's been kept in "intensive solitary confinement" ever since.

This Glenn Greenwald article does a pretty good job of explaining (since, evidently, it needs to be explained) why it might not be a good idea to keep a person alone in a room 23 hours a day without allowing him so much as a pillow or the right to exercise. Especially a person who hasn't been convicted of anything. And is 22 years old.

Now, much of the world considers that level of solitary confinement a form of torture. Greenwald links to an Atul Gawande article you might have read last year that makes that case. (I remember reading it - scared the hell out of me then, and turns my blood cold now.)


To recap what's going on, if you'd like a summary: an enlisted soldier in the U.S. Army is alleged (but not convicted, it bears repeating) to have borne witness to a vast swath of classified documents revealing what appears to be a long long list of illegal and often horrific misdeeds on the part of the country he was serving. He then, according to the allegation, shared that documented evidence with the press in the form of the dreaded Wikileaks. Once the leak was traced back to him, he did not get a public hearing or trial (or even a private military hearing, as far as I know, though presumably one is pending) but rather was put into a brig in Kuwait for two months under the aforementioned brutal conditions (if you're not convinced of their brutality, please do read the Gawande article) before being transferred to a brig in Virginia. Where he remains. Under the same conditions.


Those conditions are perhaps not as extreme as those in the prison in Guantanamo Bay, or unacknowledged sites worldwide (well, unacknowledged except in memos like the ones leaked by Private Manning), although those prisons contain people accused of conspiring to commit acts of terrorism against the United States. That is to say, that's who we think those facilities contain - many of those prisoners haven't even been charged with anything, much less convicted.


Meanwhile, the President has been doing his darndest to extend a tax cut to the richest percent of American wage earners to the tune of 700 billion+ over the next couple years and calling it a victory because unemployment benefits might be extended. And standing idly by while the TSA sexes up security procedures in airports (yup, I kind of agree with the righties on this one - though I won't pretend it makes sense to me how the naked scanner is such a huge violation of civil rights while extraordinary rendition and warrantless, probable-cause-free stop-and-frisk city police procedures [for instance] are a-ok). And the job situation, well, that's not really a lot better. And, oh yeah, the war. And all those things that the leaks revealed presumably go on, business-as-usual.


Well, Mr. President, I'm just gonna come right out and say it: I'm not ok with this.


I know you have to work with Congress, that you don't have power simply to dictate policy (and I wouldn't want you to). I know you are brilliant, way smarter than I am; and charismatic, and persuasive, and an expert on Constitutional Law, and knowledgeable about how things work in domestic and international policy. But... I don't know what you're doing. I keep thinking you must have something up your sleeve, some ingenious plan that will be revealed over time. I keep waiting for you to pull that rabbit out of the hat.


But I can't wait forever.


And I guess I may as well remind you (and my Senators and Congressmen, and especially that ridiculous Governor) that I don't owe you my undying loyalty. Or even my vote. No one does.

Historic Events

Today, of course, is the anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, which event ushered the U.S. into World War II. And while that does tempt me to discuss America's current military incursion in Asia, I'm actually thinking more about a big round anniversary that happened yesterday, but didn't get a lot of attention. That would be the 40th anniversary of the concert at Altamont. You know, the big Peace and Love Fest that Wasn't, where the Stones headlined.

It's often painted as the Anti-Woodstock, for its aggressive nature and tone, and, oh yeah, the deaths. (4 people died, one stabbed, by a Hell's Angels security guard.) Rob Kirkpatrick gave the anniversary some column inches, but on the whole it's been ignored, much more so than the Woodstock anniversary a few months ago, with the reunion concerts and the special edition DVDs and the new movie about the event and such. This makes a certain amount of sense, as, unlike Woodstock, it's not something people want to celebrate. But it is historically significant; some people think of it as the moment when the '60s ended, in spirit if not in chronology. I might pick another event that resulted in 4 fatalities a few months later on a college campus in the heartland, but Altamont was an important indicator of the shift. Again, a celebration of Flower Power it was not: that Hell's Angel was acquitted, as the court determined that the woman he stabbed was waving a loaded gun toward the stage.

I think of it also because, though a sense of Utopian possibility may have been slipping away, there was still a lot of activism going on that was, well, pretty active. Cory and I were talking about some of the things going on and wondering where the creative, energetic, risk-taking, influential activist groups are. Where is today's SNCC? Does the SDS have any momentum? Is Act Up still out there acting with the kind of force it used to? Is the ACLU still successful at getting Congresspeople's attention?

This is not some kind of appeal for the good old bad old days (and actually, I think the ACLU does still have some sway), but it is an appeal for the kind of juicy, vital, fingers-on-the-pulse-rather-than-on-the-keyboard kinds of social movements that actually move things. And yes, I admit that I don't lie down in front of tanks much myself. But people might lie down in front of the entrance to City Hall (or the Lincoln Tunnel) if there were a well-organized group ready to jump in there.

Of course, I could be wrong.

I <3 NY

I really do. Most of the time. But then once in a while, they decide to do something really annoying, probably unconstitutional, and just plain wrong. And it makes me just. go. berserk. Just like Billy Jack.

Lotta rhetoric flying around the idea of gay marriage, in New York and across the country. Six New York Democrats voted against it. Well, seven, if you count Ruben "It's Treason" Diaz, but I honestly don't know if anyone is thinking of him as a Democrat anymore in anything but name.

On the other hand, maybe the Dems deserve the name he's giving them. You saw what I posted yesterday about the Afghan War. And a little while ago, 64 of them in the U.S. House voted to dial back women's access to safe and legal abortions, as I've discussed here too. You know: Safe. Legal. Like you'd want if someone you love needed one. Like women in this country have been able to count on for a couple generations. Like Democrats used to insist on as a base level for the discussion. Here's Barbara Ehrenreich with a really good article on the defanging of feminism. (The gist - while once American women took stands and took to the streets en masse, now you get to call yourself 'aware' of 'women's health concerns' by wearing a little pink pin.) And while we're on Democratic selldowns, where is the New Deal for this generation's economic crisis? Where are the jobs? Where is the aggressive handling of the outsized robber barons of Wall Street?

Ok, ok - I still like Obama better than Bush. I guess I like the Democrats better than the Republicans. (I guess.) But hoooo boy, I'm tired of paying them and getting out the vote for them and not getting what I paid and voted for.

Keep writing those letters and emails and making those phone calls, people. Make it clear that your wallets are closed to officials that don't effect the policies you support and demand.

What would Billy Jack do?





Hehehe.

But as I imagine going all Billy Jack on them, I'm thinking of a quote I saw earlier today and now can't remember where it was. I'll try to track it down, but it went something like: "...then you realize that there is no 'Them,' there's only 'Us,' and We fucked up."

Tough Going

In the shadow of imminent troop escalation, Bob Herbert on Obama, Afghanistan and real strength.

I keep hearing that Americans are concerned about gargantuan budget deficits. Well, the idea that you can control mounting deficits while engaged in two wars that you refuse to raise taxes to pay for is a patent absurdity. Small children might believe something along those lines. Rational adults should not...

Afghanistan is not Vietnam. There was every reason for American forces to invade Afghanistan in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001. But that war was botched and lost by the Bush crowd, and Barack Obama does not have a magic wand now to make it all better...

The tougher choice for the president would have been to tell the public that the U.S. is a nation faced with terrible troubles here at home and that it is time to begin winding down a war that veered wildly off track years ago. But that would have taken great political courage. It would have left Mr. Obama vulnerable to the charge of being weak, of cutting and running, of betraying the troops who have already served. The Republicans would have a field day with that scenario.

Gatherings this week - in Chelsea, UES and Times Square. Thanks to Sherin for the 411.

Genius? Or merely Brilliant?

Probably merely brilliant. Geniuses are really really Rare. Have we been down this road before?


And I'll want to write more about this man before long, but I'm very very short on time right now. However, I alluded to him last week, and I don't want to let another day go by before I devote a post to Mike Daisey.

He is a fascinating writer, performer, my new favorite blogger (do click on the link above, please) and one of the best monologists of our time, in my opinion. His new show If You See Something Say Something opens tonight at Joe's Pub, directed by his perennial partner Jean-Michele Gregory. I caught a preview a couple weekends ago, and I hope that this show gets the accolades it deserves. That would be nigh-unalloyed praise from the New York Times and Variety all rolled into one.

Ok, ok, I'm maybe getting a little overheated here. And I do have to run. But guys, for real: Go. See. This. Show.

politics and anger

It's usually not the most productive choice to give into anger. However, some of the things that come across my line of sight just provoke full-throated rage in me. Don't want to paint myself to be some sort of Billy Jack or anything, but things like what has been going on in American military prisons do make - me - go - berserk: that torture has been redefined as allowable 'cruelty;' that our intelligence agencies divert prisoners via 'extraordinary rendition' to certain foreign prisons which have even fewer restrictions on what types of interrogation are permissible and encouraged.

Guys, I know you know this, but this situation is no kind of joke - it is huge and horrid national shame.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I have tremendous respect and gratitude for our soldiers, who do some fantastic work, put themselves in harm's way and have a kind of courage I'll never know. It is not the typical soldier I indict. In fact it's utterly boggling that simple soldiers have taken the heat for what's gone on in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.

And you know what's gone on, right?

So, ok, I wrote some stuff that shows a side of me very few ever get to see. And there's a good reason for that. (That whole thing about rage not being productive.)

I've been working to discipline my thoughts lately. Not to suppress or ignore impulses that are uncomfortable, but to get into the habit of turning my mind to things that are useful, positive and somehow geared toward growth. As a character said in a book I read (and deeply appreciated) recently, "you have to choose your thoughts the way you choose the clothes you put on in the morning."

There's something to that.

So, instead of giving in to the vitriol, I refer you to Seymour Hersh's article in this week's New Yorker, which details the events at Abu Ghraib, and more importantly, the systematic hiding and diversion that went on around them; the conscious plotting on the part of people very high in the military establishment and Department of Defense (yes, including Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz) and White House (right up to the top, y'all) to encourage these methods of extracting information that are not only repulsive on a primal level and ethically abhorrent, but notoriously ineffective (which everyone knows - don't they? I mean, do these guys really believe the shit they see on TV?!)

See, it's hard to be measured about this stuff!

The article follows Major General Antonio Taguba, who comes off as a true hero - the kind of guy who inspires people to become career soldiers in the first place - given the job of investigating the abuses at Abu Ghraib, but really expected by the higher-ups to bury them. Nonetheless, he pursued his investigation with great energy, integrity, and what could be described as patriotic fervor. And then he was ostracized roundly for doing so.




And it also shows us the work of this guy:


Major General Geoffrey Miller, a former Gitmo commander who was given the job of making information-gathering more efficient at Abu Ghraib by encouraging the 'loosening up' of prisoners. And then was given the job of 'restoring order' when abuse allegations became known.

Just think it's good to have a face to go with the names of our war criminals.

Please permit me a moment to pause here to acknowledge Genarlow Wilson, the guy given a 10-year sentence for engaging at the age of 17 in consensual oral sex with a 15-year old in Georgia. Even though the Georgia legislature changed the sentencing guidelines of the law after he was sentenced, he wasn't permitted to benefit retroactively. And while a judge did recently order him released, citing the obvious miscarriage of justice (well done!), the Attorney General prosecuting the case is appealing in hopes of returning Wilson to prison for the remainder of his sentence, followed by a lifetime as a registered sex offender.

Guess my point here is that this kid who got a blow job from someone who evidently wanted to give it to him is staring down a LONG prison sentence and ruined life, while the real bad guys have their freedom securely intact.

But rather than give in to the temptation of nastiness, perhaps your time would be better spent signing this petition, brought to us by the folks at MoveOn.

Oh, and if that's not enough, you may as well check out this editorial in Salon.com, which has links to the big Washington Post series on Dick Cheney which has got so much attention in the last few days.

And let's not forget that our Supreme Court has been pretty busy the last couple days too...

Sigh.