Talk about the opposite of mending fences…

So a pastor in North Carolina decided that the way to rid the world of lesbians and “queers” was to put us all inside electrified fences and stop feeding us.   Then we would inevitably “die out.”

If you watch the video below from AC360 last evening, you’ll see sections of the preacher’s video, which was taken down yesterday from YouTube after it received over 25,000 hits.

I try not to be surprised by people’s hatred.  I also try to forgive people’s insanity.  I’m struggling with this video, mostly because of the repeated choruses of “amen” in the background, each time this lone person talks about destroying people for being gay and lesbian.  The “amens” or “I believe” mean that he’s clearly not alone in thinking that this proposed solution has merit.

I also find it nauseating that this speech happened in a so-called house of God.  I stopped practicing religion a long time ago, but I still respect houses of worship and the teachings of Jesus.  How those teachings lead this man and many others like him to putting other human beings inside electrified fences, I’ll never understand.

Get over the s. o.

Ben Brantley of The New York Times did a great service last week when he called for an end to the automatic standing ovation on Broadway (the s.o.).  I couldn’t agree more and highly recommend that we all work to end this very silly and now meaningless cultural phenomenon.  Read Brantley’s take by clicking here.

Once on Broadway: Thank God, some people still understand how to make theatre

So let me be frank.

I probably go to the theatre more than the average person because it’s what I do.  I make theatre and I teach theatre; therefore, I also have to be a consumer of theatre.  It’s how I stay current, and hopefully I see work that inspires me to create and teach in new and different ways.

As I’ve grown older and more experienced, that last piece about inspiration very rarely happens.  Once I started studying theatre as a graduate student, it became harder and harder to feel inspired about anything.  I find it difficult to shut off my internal critic, and as a result, I end up analyzing every choice up on stage, from acting to directing to design.  Unfortunately this often makes going to the theatre a really unpleasant experience.

Case in point: I saw a certain show with a certain famous pop star the other night.  Other than a beautiful design (costumes, scenic, and lighting), the production failed miserably.  Even the pop star’s fame couldn’t make the show move along.  While disappointing, I’ve come to expect this kind of experience.  Broadway musical productions rarely satisfy beyond showcasing the newest visual innovation.  Or we get some movie or television star attempting to act in real time without stopping and starting for multiple takes.  If these actors make it through the performance without a major screw up, we think that they’re suddenly “gifted stage actors.”  Granted, there are excellent crossover actors who can go both ways, but that should never be assumed.

This afternoon I had the absolute pleasure and privilege to see the new musical Once on Broadway, based on the movie of the same name.  This show is by far one of the best new pieces of theatre that I’ve seen in at least 15 years, maybe longer.  I haven’t felt this connected to a musical since seeing Rent for the first time in 1996, and ironically, Once also originated at New York Theatre Workshop, the original off-Broadway home of Rent.

Once features outstanding performances by the two lead actors, Steve Kazee and Cristin Milioti, both of whom have been nominated for Tony Awards.  Beyond these two leads, the entire ensemble turns out fantastic performances, full of energy, focus, and nuance.  Not to mention that every single one of them plays an instrument in the performance.  So the entire experience feels filled with artistry, musicianship, and sensitivity that moved me at various points throughout the show.

I could go on and on and on about this show, but instead, I’m going to make a few very clear points:

#1.  Once knows exactly what it is.  It doesn’t try to be anything other than what it is, and the entire cast and production team understand that.  Hallelujah!  This so rarely happens anymore, so when it does, it should be acknowledged.  The Tonys got it right this time with 11 nominations for this show.

#2.  The Irishness of Once is apparent from start to finish, and having spent a fair amount of time in Dublin, the authenticity ofthe storytelling is striking.

#3.  The production team has created a theatrical experience for this adaptation, not a simple replication of the movie.  But this understanding of the theatrical experience has made this production incredibly moving.  Enda Walsh (book), John Tiffany (director), and Steven Hoggett (movement) have made that translation to the stage happen in a way that I found inspiring.  The simplicity and specificity of the storytelling makes for an actor-driven event that has moments of magic that I will not soon forget.

I’m still processing the experience of seeing this performance.  My advice is to get a ticket as soon as you can.  It’s one of those moments that rarely comes around anymore.

Do it.

Now.

Do not miss Once. 

Buffet Rule tanks in Senate

On Monday, Senators from across the country, mostly our GOP friends, decided to block the proposed Buffet Rule from even entering debate on the Senate floor.  The proposed bill would require anyone making $1 million or more to pay a minimum of 30% in federal taxes.  Conversely, poll numbers indicate that 7 out of 10 Americans are in favor of such legislation.  That nagging 30% of people who are not in favor is slightly disconcerting, but that’s another issue.

This action by elected Senators offers a fine example of how democracy doesn’t always work so well.  These 100 men and women get elected by the citizens of their states to represent their interests in Congress and to make decisions for the good of the American people.  Senators and representatives should represent the interests of the electorate through their voting and their support of certain measures.  I’m relating this back to the idea of privilege that I discussed in the last blog post.  Our elected friends seem to be losing touch with the electorate more and more each election cycle.  Democracy worked a little better when the gaps in the American experience weren’t quite so large.  At least that’s my perception from 20 or so years of personal awareness and from studying American history.

How can the gap in experience and understanding begin to shrink?  Who should we elect to hold these offices?  Do we need more representation so that viewpoints on issues can be more differentiated and actually represent the experience of the electorate?  Does bigger, broader government cause a better system of checks and balances?  I have a sinking feeling that the answer to the last question is “no,” but it might not hurt to entertain the idea as a way to get to something better than what we have now.

The image problems of leadership

In an Op/Ed piece in The New York Times called “Working and Women,” Frank Bruni adds his two cents about Hilary Rosen’s super gaffe about Ann Romney being a stay-at-home mom and never working.  There’s been a ton of commentary about this, mostly about how stay-at-home moms deserve more respect.  Bruni talks about his own stay-at-home mom, and I feel great love and respect for my stay-at-home mom, who ultimately needed to become a working mom because the family’s financial situation demanded it.

For me, this whole debacle comes down to something much more deeply rooted: class and socioeconomic status (SES).  Bruni acknowledges this in his op/ed, but he doesn’t spend enough time digging into the issue.  Let’s face it, Romney and Obama don’t have much clout with the middle class.  Both are hopelessly aloof when it comes to people outside of their privileged worlds, and they and their families are easy targets for anyone looking to paint them as inaccessible, misinformed, or out of touch.  The diversity of the “American experience” has intensified over the last century, but our leadership has not shifted as quickly.  Privileged men, and now some women, still make their way to the top of the food chain, while the “99%” largely feel stuck in the mire.  Whether that’s entirely true is difficult to tell, but a person’s perception is her/his reality, and that reality does not help either candidate’s relationship to the majority of the US population.  Hilary Rosen’s comments about Ann Romney also come from a liberal, educated viewpoint that places value on certain kinds of experiences and ways of being.  This is a problem, and Bruni scratches at that as well.

US elections have been and will continue to be unfortunate reminders for the majority of the American people that leadership comes from privilege.  The mythology of the American Dream tells us that upward social mobility is achievable in the American meritocracy, as long as we work hard enough.  Lately, that’s not been the case for a large majority of the electorate.  Fewer and fewer people believe the myth, and probably with good reason.  Until a leader comes along who really acknowledges that in an honest way, the image problems will continue and comments like Hilary Rosen’s will continue as well.