The Broadway fairies were good to us - tickets for West Side Story were indeed available at TKTS yesterday, so Sarah, Rob, and I went to see it last night. It was awesome. The dancing was incredible. The set design was fantastic and creative. The cast was top notch (although - oddly - Tony and Maria each sounded fine on their own, they sounded fine when singing with other people, but when they sang duets with each other, they did not sound good at all - it was weird).
This revival has the Puerto Ricans speaking in Spanish the majority of the time that they are among their "own kind," and also often singing in Spanish. Sarah didn't care for this directive choice at all (though she speaks fluent Spanish and could follow what they were saying and singing). I know only a smattering of Spanish vocab, and thus couldn't understand what they were saying 99% of the time, but it didn't bother me as much - I can see how it would make sense, it's what 1st generation immigrants often do when among their fellow immigrants. And I'm familiar enough with the music to know what the songs were about in English, but it still did change the experience to not be able to understand what was being sung. I suppose the effect they were going for - aside from the realism - was to alienate English-only audience members to the same degree that the PRs are alienated in the play.
On a similar note - I did notice right away that the words to "America" were different than what I know them to be. I am most familiar with the movie soundtrack, which I listen to pretty regularly, and which casts "America" as the girl Sharks singing the glories of America (idealizing the land and their experience of it, focusing on the possibilities America offers), and the boys keep popping in with sarcasm and the reality of how they are treated here. In the play, it's only the girls singing, one of whom is homesick and idealizing life back in Puerto Rico, while Anita keeps reminding her of the harsh realities of life there, and why America is better than that.
Prior to yesterday, I've only ever seen the play staged once, over a decade ago, at my hometown community theatre. I don't remember noticing this difference in the songs back then, but I also don't remember if I'd already owned the CD and was super familiar with West Side Story back then. . .in any case, Sarah owns the original Broadway recording of the music, so we listened to her version today, and it matched the play exactly.
This just makes me wonder why they changed the lyrics for the movie?
It also makes me wonder why they didn't use the movie version for this revival of the play? I mean, I suppose to be a true revival, it would have to be true to the original. But this production seemed to emphasize the bigger picture issues addressed in the play - of immigration and community violence. The movie version of the song serves these purposes much better, as it is a much more pointed political commentary on both the dreams and the treatment of immigrants (especially non-white immigrants) in this country.
The original lyrics, on the other hand, better serve the individual tragic trajectories of the play: Anita is the one defending America in the song, her blindness to its dangers (whether true naivete or intentional ignorance) is her tragic flaw, and Anita is ultimately betrayed by America, whose violence kills her beloved Bernardo and then attacks her when she tries - even after his horrific death - to continue believing in the promise of America, the violence attacks her as she tries to help Tony and Maria find the somewhere they can live in peace. I guess that makes the same point, teases out the same themes, just on a much more personal scale.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Another Open Letter to All Stupid People in the Universe
I just noticed today that somebody keyed my Obama bumper sticker.
At first I thought the sticker was just falling apart from exposure to weather. But then I got closer and realized, no, there are gouges only through his name. You can still read his name, but there are gouges in my bumper where his name is on the sticker.
It could have happened a while ago - I don't have a lot of occasion to look at the back end of my car, normally I just get in the driver's seat and go. But I have a feeling that it was done more recently, like since the town hall meetings this summer. Heck, it could have happened while I was AT the town hall meeting this summer. . .
And, unfortunately, it could have happened anywhere. There's a lot of open hostility toward Obama in these parts - my car would have been a target in just about anyplace I would have parked.
Here's what I never undertand: WHY?
I mean, you don't like Obama, fine. You don't agree with his politics, or with mine - fine. You can disagree with me, disagree with him, until the cows come home. We can debate in public or in private until we're both blue in the face. You can put signs and stickers all over your own self and your own property until every inch is covered. You can write letters to the government and to the editor, you can demonstrate in the streets, you can buy time on public airwaves to tell everyone what you think. You have the right to do such things, in fact, I encourage you to do all of these things, and I will defend your rights, nonviolently, to the point of my own death.
But you do not have the right to harm me, disrespect me, or destroy my property because of such disagreement. You do not have the right to tear down my signs and stickers because you don't like who I support. You do not have the right to shut me down just because you don't like how I think or what I have to say. The First Amendment protects both of us, equally. Capisce?
Lucky for you, when I get mad, I don't get even - I get better. When morons like you stole our yard signs in 2004, I spent Wellstone World Music Day putting up twice as many signs, and they were twice as big as the ones that were taken. When I was phone banking or canvassing last year and people were unnecessarily rude to me - I'd sign up for an extra shift. The more idiots like you try to tear the world down, the harder I work to rebuild it.
So I hope keying my car accomplished whatever it was you were personally trying to accomplish, I hope whatever satisfaction you derived from the act was worth the progressive fury you're about to unleash on the world. Because I was just writing to my own Senators and Representative about this health care and environmental stuff, but now I think I'm going to write to everybody representing Pennsylvania, and I think I'll throw in a letter of encouragement to the President while I'm at it. . .
At first I thought the sticker was just falling apart from exposure to weather. But then I got closer and realized, no, there are gouges only through his name. You can still read his name, but there are gouges in my bumper where his name is on the sticker.
It could have happened a while ago - I don't have a lot of occasion to look at the back end of my car, normally I just get in the driver's seat and go. But I have a feeling that it was done more recently, like since the town hall meetings this summer. Heck, it could have happened while I was AT the town hall meeting this summer. . .
And, unfortunately, it could have happened anywhere. There's a lot of open hostility toward Obama in these parts - my car would have been a target in just about anyplace I would have parked.
Here's what I never undertand: WHY?
I mean, you don't like Obama, fine. You don't agree with his politics, or with mine - fine. You can disagree with me, disagree with him, until the cows come home. We can debate in public or in private until we're both blue in the face. You can put signs and stickers all over your own self and your own property until every inch is covered. You can write letters to the government and to the editor, you can demonstrate in the streets, you can buy time on public airwaves to tell everyone what you think. You have the right to do such things, in fact, I encourage you to do all of these things, and I will defend your rights, nonviolently, to the point of my own death.
But you do not have the right to harm me, disrespect me, or destroy my property because of such disagreement. You do not have the right to tear down my signs and stickers because you don't like who I support. You do not have the right to shut me down just because you don't like how I think or what I have to say. The First Amendment protects both of us, equally. Capisce?
Lucky for you, when I get mad, I don't get even - I get better. When morons like you stole our yard signs in 2004, I spent Wellstone World Music Day putting up twice as many signs, and they were twice as big as the ones that were taken. When I was phone banking or canvassing last year and people were unnecessarily rude to me - I'd sign up for an extra shift. The more idiots like you try to tear the world down, the harder I work to rebuild it.
So I hope keying my car accomplished whatever it was you were personally trying to accomplish, I hope whatever satisfaction you derived from the act was worth the progressive fury you're about to unleash on the world. Because I was just writing to my own Senators and Representative about this health care and environmental stuff, but now I think I'm going to write to everybody representing Pennsylvania, and I think I'll throw in a letter of encouragement to the President while I'm at it. . .
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
The Devil and Pat Robertson
Brilliant letter ran in the Minneapolis Star-Trib the other day.
Hat tip to T of the Snake Charmer's Wife for the link.
Hat tip to T of the Snake Charmer's Wife for the link.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Some Thoughts on Wagner's "Bridal March"
Background: About a year ago, a friend and fellow colleague asked "What's really the big deal about Wagner's Bridal March? Why do many congregations ban it from wedding services?"
I was recently reminded of this question again when reviewing my congregation's wedding policy, which discourages use of this song. I happen to like opera, and specifically Wagner's operas, so I decided to dig into this issue a little deeper, and sent the following around to the group of colleagues who had discussed this last year. One of them requested I post it on facebook so it can serve as a point of reference for others. I thought for good measure, I'd post it over here as well.
So, our wedding policy (which was written years before I came to this congregation) officially discourages use of this music, allegedly because the opera contains:
a) pagan themes
and
b) the bride dies after the wedding
As to criticism a - the opera is based on Germanic folklore, so it's "pagan" to the extent that folklore is. It also invokes God often - basically, think of a medieval mindset that believed in both God and magic - that's the blend you've got going on here.
As to criticism b - the last line in my libretto is a stage direction "Elsa slowly sinks lifeless to the ground in Godfrey's arms." She's sinking to the ground in despair because by her own tragic flaw (insisting on knowing her mysterious savior-figure husband's identity when she promised she wouldn't ask about it), she has made it that her husband (with whom she is very much in love) must go away forever (that's what makes for good opera - if you don't like it, take it up with those who make up the laws of magical German folklore!).
So - is she just passing out, overwrought with emotion at watching her husband sail away forever? Or is she dying of a self-induced broken heart? I suppose that's up to interpretation, but I guess I don't see this ending as a reason for banning the music - if anything, the "moral of the story" is a decent one - beware the consequences of breaking promises and insisting on your own way all the time in your marriage, as this will only alienate you from your beloved.
[Ironically, our wedding policy also discourages use of Mendelssohn's march from A Midsummer Night's Dream (for what I think are similarly ridiculous reasons), but it encourages use of some music titled "The Prince of Denmark's March" - now, maybe that was written for some later, actual prince of Denmark, but that title is pretty strongly associated in my mind with Hamlet, which is a WAY more messed up story (in which EVERYBODY dies) than either Lohengrin or A Midsummer Night's Dream. . .]
In any case, what we know as the "bridal march" is not actually the bridal march in the opera - there IS a bridal procession, and it's an absolutely gorgeous piece of music, but it's in Act 2. What we commonly refer to as the bridal march comes in the beginning of Act 3 - the overture to the third act is meant to depict the "brilliant bustle of the wedding feast" then the curtain opens to reveal the bridal chamber, and the chorus sings the following words to this all-too-familiar tune:
Guided by faith, enter within,
where may the blessing of love attend you!
Victorious valour and the prize of love
unite you in trust as a blessed pair.
Champion of virtue, advance!
Flower of youth, advance!
Let the sound of revelry be shut out
and your heart's bliss be attained!
Now, removed from sight, take possession
of this perfumed chamber, decked for love.
Guided in faith, now enter within,
where may the blessing of love attend you!
Victorious valour and pure love
unite you in trust as a blessed pair.
As God has given you His blessing
we too wish you happiness.
Long remember this hour
in the course of love's joy!
Guided in faith, stay within,
where may the blessing of love attend you!
Victorious valour, love, and happiness
unite you in trust as a blessed pair.
Champion of virtue, here remain!
Flower of youth, here remain!
Leet the sound of revelry be shut out
and your heart's bliss be attained!
Now, removed from sight, take posession
of this perfumed chamber, decked for love.
Guided in faith, stay within,
where may the blessing of love attend you!
Victorious valour, love, and happiness
unite you in trust as a blessed pair.
Again, up to everyone's individual taste and interpretation of "appropriateness," but I don't see what's so bad about those words. In fact, I find it kind of a nice sentiment, having the blessing of God and your community, being guided by faith and united in trust as a blessed pair. Of course, since the scene is the bridal chamber and the song also references the heart's bliss being attained, it's also about SEX - which is where, I would presume, the real (if unacknowledged) criticism of this music lies. But, seeing how sex and sexuality is part and parcel of a healthy marriage, I don't see that as a reason to keep it out of a marriage service either.
So, there's my mini-thesis on Wagner's "bridal march" - do with it what you will. :)
Comments and further insight are most welcome.
Peace,
Catrina
I was recently reminded of this question again when reviewing my congregation's wedding policy, which discourages use of this song. I happen to like opera, and specifically Wagner's operas, so I decided to dig into this issue a little deeper, and sent the following around to the group of colleagues who had discussed this last year. One of them requested I post it on facebook so it can serve as a point of reference for others. I thought for good measure, I'd post it over here as well.
So, our wedding policy (which was written years before I came to this congregation) officially discourages use of this music, allegedly because the opera contains:
a) pagan themes
and
b) the bride dies after the wedding
As to criticism a - the opera is based on Germanic folklore, so it's "pagan" to the extent that folklore is. It also invokes God often - basically, think of a medieval mindset that believed in both God and magic - that's the blend you've got going on here.
As to criticism b - the last line in my libretto is a stage direction "Elsa slowly sinks lifeless to the ground in Godfrey's arms." She's sinking to the ground in despair because by her own tragic flaw (insisting on knowing her mysterious savior-figure husband's identity when she promised she wouldn't ask about it), she has made it that her husband (with whom she is very much in love) must go away forever (that's what makes for good opera - if you don't like it, take it up with those who make up the laws of magical German folklore!).
So - is she just passing out, overwrought with emotion at watching her husband sail away forever? Or is she dying of a self-induced broken heart? I suppose that's up to interpretation, but I guess I don't see this ending as a reason for banning the music - if anything, the "moral of the story" is a decent one - beware the consequences of breaking promises and insisting on your own way all the time in your marriage, as this will only alienate you from your beloved.
[Ironically, our wedding policy also discourages use of Mendelssohn's march from A Midsummer Night's Dream (for what I think are similarly ridiculous reasons), but it encourages use of some music titled "The Prince of Denmark's March" - now, maybe that was written for some later, actual prince of Denmark, but that title is pretty strongly associated in my mind with Hamlet, which is a WAY more messed up story (in which EVERYBODY dies) than either Lohengrin or A Midsummer Night's Dream. . .]
In any case, what we know as the "bridal march" is not actually the bridal march in the opera - there IS a bridal procession, and it's an absolutely gorgeous piece of music, but it's in Act 2. What we commonly refer to as the bridal march comes in the beginning of Act 3 - the overture to the third act is meant to depict the "brilliant bustle of the wedding feast" then the curtain opens to reveal the bridal chamber, and the chorus sings the following words to this all-too-familiar tune:
Guided by faith, enter within,
where may the blessing of love attend you!
Victorious valour and the prize of love
unite you in trust as a blessed pair.
Champion of virtue, advance!
Flower of youth, advance!
Let the sound of revelry be shut out
and your heart's bliss be attained!
Now, removed from sight, take possession
of this perfumed chamber, decked for love.
Guided in faith, now enter within,
where may the blessing of love attend you!
Victorious valour and pure love
unite you in trust as a blessed pair.
As God has given you His blessing
we too wish you happiness.
Long remember this hour
in the course of love's joy!
Guided in faith, stay within,
where may the blessing of love attend you!
Victorious valour, love, and happiness
unite you in trust as a blessed pair.
Champion of virtue, here remain!
Flower of youth, here remain!
Leet the sound of revelry be shut out
and your heart's bliss be attained!
Now, removed from sight, take posession
of this perfumed chamber, decked for love.
Guided in faith, stay within,
where may the blessing of love attend you!
Victorious valour, love, and happiness
unite you in trust as a blessed pair.
Again, up to everyone's individual taste and interpretation of "appropriateness," but I don't see what's so bad about those words. In fact, I find it kind of a nice sentiment, having the blessing of God and your community, being guided by faith and united in trust as a blessed pair. Of course, since the scene is the bridal chamber and the song also references the heart's bliss being attained, it's also about SEX - which is where, I would presume, the real (if unacknowledged) criticism of this music lies. But, seeing how sex and sexuality is part and parcel of a healthy marriage, I don't see that as a reason to keep it out of a marriage service either.
So, there's my mini-thesis on Wagner's "bridal march" - do with it what you will. :)
Comments and further insight are most welcome.
Peace,
Catrina
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Quick Book Reviews
I've had an ever-growing stack of books sitting by the computer for several months now, things I've read that I've intended to review on the blog. I just want to cull the pile a little at this point, so here are some pithy insights into:
They Like Jesus But Not the Church: Insight from Emerging Generations by Dan Kimball
The jist: Kimball is an evangelical pastor who realized that he spent all his time with churchy/churched people, and that wasn't cool, so he started purposely holding office hours in coffee shops and such, and started chatting up the non-churched/de-churched folks he met there. He discovered most of these folks didn't have such a problem with Jesus the man, the rabbi, even Jesus as the Son of God - their beef was with the institutional church, which they perceive to be: pushing its own political agenda; too male dominated and oppressive of females; homophobic; arrogant; fundamentalist; etc.
Kimball is mainly speaking to fellow evangelicals, and trying to couch these well-deserved critiques in language that will actually be heard and taken to heart. To the extent that all pastors are prone to the occupational hazard of only hanging out with churchy people, and to the extent that the mainline is subject to the same perceptions (or misperceptions) about the church, this book is helpful in revealing what non-churched folks are thinking and what mistaken narratives need to be retold and which paradigms need to be broken open both within the institution of the church and within the hearts and minds of those outside the church.
BUT, at the end of the day, Kimball is still an Evangelical, and I am still a Lutheran. He's ultimately going to say you've got to make a choice for God, when I'm ultimately going to say that God makes a choice for you. Maybe it's due to this insurmountable chasm between our understanding of God, but throughout the book I couldn't shake the feeling that his theological underwear was showing - like, he's going to these great lengths to befriend people and earn their trust and show them he's not your stereotypical smarmy tract-dropping evangelist, but his underlying agenda is still to lead them to a Come to Jesus moment, begging the question - does a gentler, more patient altar call make it any less creepy? To me it still feels smarmy and underhanded, but I will give the Holy Spirit the benefit of the doubt - perhaps this is the way the Gospel is reinventing itself among this particular expression of the body of Christ.
Crazy Talk: A Not-So-Stuffy Dictionary of Theological Terms, edited by Rolf Jacobson
Full disclosure: I am completely biased, as I went to seminary and/or am friends with most of the folks responsible for this little volume, which is both educational and entertaining. Accessibly unpacks weighty theological terms and ideas with a liberal dose of tongue-in-cheek humor. Every church library should have a copy on its shelves, and every pastor should be sure to read it. In addition to enlightening your mind and spirits, it could be a great tool for launching discussions in confirmation, bible study, council meetings, etc, and/or a great gift for your favorite church nerd!
The Shack by William Paul Young
It seems people either love or hate this book, very few folks I've talked to are indifferent to it. Personally, I find Young's writing style kind of annoying, and there are some theological points with which I would quibble, but on the whole I appreciated the way he takes some very deep, difficult process theology (much of which I would agree with) and explains it in a way that is highly accessible, and opens people for whom these are entirely new thoughts to thinking about and discussing these ideas together. We pastor types can learn from that, or at least use this book as a tool to open up such discussions and ideas with our people (case in point: this was our selection for September's book club, and it was the best turn out and best discussion to date). Breen had essentially the same take on the book (both complaints and appreciation), so she adopted a reading strategy to put the book down and walk away for awhile every time she felt herself becoming too literarily or theologically critical, before she got irritated enough to stop reading altogether. I read the bulk of it on a layover back from MN in August, and it was the only book I had on me, so I just kept plugging along, but I think I like her strategy better. Especially if you find yourself feeling like you "hate" the book - just put it down for a while and come back to it.
They Like Jesus But Not the Church: Insight from Emerging Generations by Dan Kimball
The jist: Kimball is an evangelical pastor who realized that he spent all his time with churchy/churched people, and that wasn't cool, so he started purposely holding office hours in coffee shops and such, and started chatting up the non-churched/de-churched folks he met there. He discovered most of these folks didn't have such a problem with Jesus the man, the rabbi, even Jesus as the Son of God - their beef was with the institutional church, which they perceive to be: pushing its own political agenda; too male dominated and oppressive of females; homophobic; arrogant; fundamentalist; etc.
Kimball is mainly speaking to fellow evangelicals, and trying to couch these well-deserved critiques in language that will actually be heard and taken to heart. To the extent that all pastors are prone to the occupational hazard of only hanging out with churchy people, and to the extent that the mainline is subject to the same perceptions (or misperceptions) about the church, this book is helpful in revealing what non-churched folks are thinking and what mistaken narratives need to be retold and which paradigms need to be broken open both within the institution of the church and within the hearts and minds of those outside the church.
BUT, at the end of the day, Kimball is still an Evangelical, and I am still a Lutheran. He's ultimately going to say you've got to make a choice for God, when I'm ultimately going to say that God makes a choice for you. Maybe it's due to this insurmountable chasm between our understanding of God, but throughout the book I couldn't shake the feeling that his theological underwear was showing - like, he's going to these great lengths to befriend people and earn their trust and show them he's not your stereotypical smarmy tract-dropping evangelist, but his underlying agenda is still to lead them to a Come to Jesus moment, begging the question - does a gentler, more patient altar call make it any less creepy? To me it still feels smarmy and underhanded, but I will give the Holy Spirit the benefit of the doubt - perhaps this is the way the Gospel is reinventing itself among this particular expression of the body of Christ.
Crazy Talk: A Not-So-Stuffy Dictionary of Theological Terms, edited by Rolf Jacobson
Full disclosure: I am completely biased, as I went to seminary and/or am friends with most of the folks responsible for this little volume, which is both educational and entertaining. Accessibly unpacks weighty theological terms and ideas with a liberal dose of tongue-in-cheek humor. Every church library should have a copy on its shelves, and every pastor should be sure to read it. In addition to enlightening your mind and spirits, it could be a great tool for launching discussions in confirmation, bible study, council meetings, etc, and/or a great gift for your favorite church nerd!
The Shack by William Paul Young
It seems people either love or hate this book, very few folks I've talked to are indifferent to it. Personally, I find Young's writing style kind of annoying, and there are some theological points with which I would quibble, but on the whole I appreciated the way he takes some very deep, difficult process theology (much of which I would agree with) and explains it in a way that is highly accessible, and opens people for whom these are entirely new thoughts to thinking about and discussing these ideas together. We pastor types can learn from that, or at least use this book as a tool to open up such discussions and ideas with our people (case in point: this was our selection for September's book club, and it was the best turn out and best discussion to date). Breen had essentially the same take on the book (both complaints and appreciation), so she adopted a reading strategy to put the book down and walk away for awhile every time she felt herself becoming too literarily or theologically critical, before she got irritated enough to stop reading altogether. I read the bulk of it on a layover back from MN in August, and it was the only book I had on me, so I just kept plugging along, but I think I like her strategy better. Especially if you find yourself feeling like you "hate" the book - just put it down for a while and come back to it.
The Air is Hummin'
Could it be? Yes it could - something's coming, something good!
If I can wait. . .
I'm heading to the Big Apple for the Trinity Institute this year, which means I'll have a couple nights free to play in the city. I've been wanting to see the West Side Story revival since last spring, and the TKTS website indicates tickets for said show have been showing up at their booth of late.
Will they have tickets the nights I'm in town?
Could be. . .who knows? ;)
If I can wait. . .
I'm heading to the Big Apple for the Trinity Institute this year, which means I'll have a couple nights free to play in the city. I've been wanting to see the West Side Story revival since last spring, and the TKTS website indicates tickets for said show have been showing up at their booth of late.
Will they have tickets the nights I'm in town?
Could be. . .who knows? ;)
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Adventures in Ready Made Ethnicity
I made Moroccan for dinner tonight. I love Moroccan food, but normally I make it from scratch and I just ignore all those directions about adding hot peppers and other such searing spices, so I forget that "normal" Moroccan food has got a kick to it.
Tonight I made Moroccan in a box. It was a curry-type dish that came with a pre-assembled spice packet, the ingredients of which girl genius neglected to notice until cooking was already well under way. Ready-made Moroccan included both chili and cayenne pepper.
Uff. da.
I still ate it, and it was delicious. But I've got a feeling I'm going to run out of yogurt and couscous before I run out of the curry. :)
Tonight I made Moroccan in a box. It was a curry-type dish that came with a pre-assembled spice packet, the ingredients of which girl genius neglected to notice until cooking was already well under way. Ready-made Moroccan included both chili and cayenne pepper.
Uff. da.
I still ate it, and it was delicious. But I've got a feeling I'm going to run out of yogurt and couscous before I run out of the curry. :)
Happy Anniversary, AMC!
Thanks for 40 years of life as we know it refracted through the residents of Pine Valley, Pennsylvania.
May you never lose your social edginess and your commitment to cultural relevance, and may the antics of La Kane and company keep us watching another 40 years.
May you never lose your social edginess and your commitment to cultural relevance, and may the antics of La Kane and company keep us watching another 40 years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)