Musing about my column with Beaufort’s own Gary Geboy, phenomenal photographer and artist and, it turns out, a reader of “Standpoint” this past weekend, he wondered if I knew that Barack Obama has surpassed George W. Bush in yet another of the endless, sorry measurements of presidential performance: Bush went 214 days between full press conferences; Obama has managed to make it 278.
Of course, the wunderkind has balanced this deliberate absence from press scrutiny for nearly a year with endless speeches, sound bites and fluff interviews all controlled/managed by his staff, the most recent and near best of which was his over–the-top, over-thirty-minute diatribe about how he “wouldn’t rest” until the Gulf oil spill was cleaned up and all those responsible duly fingered and prosecuted. This, it seemed, was the Obama way of ensuring he would not be blamed for the oil spill in the way his supporters had so happily blamed Bush for Hurricane Katrina.
This is part of the insidiousness of what I have earlier dubbed the most manipulative White House on record and here’s my point: Just as they used brilliant communications strategies and expertise to get this President elected on a fresh breeze of “change” we could believe in and an (unkept) promise to move to the center, they have deftly side-stepped the media (even the right wing-maligned “mainstream media”) in what appears to be a strategic decision to control as much of the message as they can without the risk of the transparent, overt, intelligent challenge that arises when good journalists do their jobs well at Presidential press conferences.
It’s understandable, of course. Would you want to be in front of the press defending the ramming through of a Healthcare bill that your Party’s members of Congress had not read, that 58% of the electorate wants repealed and the ultimate cost of which the Congressional Budget Office now suggests could be as much as three times what it originally posited? Of course not. Much easier to run off to a friendly town hall meeting and produce high def beauty shots of happy physicians and taxpayers thrilled to the bone about the new plan.
There is a massive difference between encouraging and obtaining media coverage, of which there is plenty, telling us what the President and key Senators, Representatives, Cabinet Secretaries and Administration officials have said or done, and the unfettered access of a “free press” to the elected representatives of the people and to their paid executives so that the essential, constitutional reason for that free press’ existence can always be ensured.
As a former Canadian I have remarked to so many American friends and relatives that there is a mistrust of government in the USA that is not paralleled in my old home to the North. “We’re taught it,” most answer, and I guess that’s a good thing. In fact, here’s what James Madison had to say about it all way back in 1799:
“Some degree of abuse is inseparable from the proper use of everything; and in no instance is this more true, than in that of the press. It has accordingly been decided by the practice of the states, that it is better to leave a few of its noxious branches to their luxuriant growth, than by pruning them away, to injure the vigour of those yielding the proper fruits. And can the wisdom of this policy be doubted by any who reflect, that to the press alone, chequered as it is with abuses, the world is indebted for all the triumphs which have been gained by reason and humanity, over error and oppression; who reflect, that to the same beneficent source, the United States owe much of the lights which conducted them to the rank of a free and independent nation; and which have improved their political system into a shape so auspicious to their happiness.”
Wouldn’t it be nice if someone reminded Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and, most of all, that absolute master of doublespeak evasion of the press, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, as well as the lazy louts in the media who just find it easier to pontificate on panels than to go to work and seek the truth (there always is one if you dig deeply enough) that we are within our rights and sound in our ideal of expecting more?
So, I’m out power walking in my neighborhood a few mornings ago, trying to shake the gauzy shroud of melancholy I’d been moping around in for days. I could feel this column starting in my head like a stubborn seed pushing up through dry, barren soil. An idea was forming, but I didn’t want to let it. It was too amorphous. Too vague. Possibly too controversial. Shaping it up – then toning it down – would be too exhausting. I wasn’t going there. No way.
So I’m sort of sitting back and scratching my head about all the hoopla over Arizona’s newly passed anti-illegal immigration bill. Sure, the law is a bit draconian, largely unenforceable, and ultimately will never trump federal law, no matter what all these newly resurrected states’ rights mavens say.
For the most part, about all it’s done is start another nonsensical frenzy of protests by fuzzy-headed social activists, most of whom live in places other than Arizona.
As with all issues that inspire such histrionic keening, this is to be expected.
Look, folks. It basically came down to some kind of outlet for major frustration. Someone had to do something. I don’t mean any fix is a good fix nor do I mean that this law is the way to go. I mean someone had to finally respond to the sheer anger and frustration many Arizona citizens were feeling about the situation. Arizona is apparently the gateway of South America to this our good ol’ promised land. Hundreds of thousands come through Arizona every year – and none of them have a green card.
So my guess is that if you own land in Arizona, and you pay taxes on that land, and you perceive that your tax dollars are swimming into the pockets of a lot of folks trespassing across your front lawn instead of into the services you expect from your government, then you might get a little chafed at the state of affairs.
Now don’t get me wrong. I am not against immigration. Personally, I think anyone willing to march a thousand miles across the desert just for the chance to work all day every day for sub-minimum wages in right harsh conditions adds great value to the country. We need more folks with such a serious work ethic. In fact, I’d be willing to trade double the number of folks who are already here doing nothing – and that includes everyone from multi-generational welfare recipients to career politicians -- for those who are coming here looking for work.
But the key word is “illegal.”
The Arizona law, to me, appears to be more of a state sponsored protest against illegal immigration. Anger toward huge phalanxes of undocumented, non-tax paying, largely unaccounted for individuals. People who, depending on the histrionic, Internet-fueled viewpoint you take, either reap benefits of the welfare state without paying a dime in taxes, or are totally unprotected and cruelly exploited while they’re on that noble quest for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The basic problem, to me, is that we are not terribly serious about any of it. We scream and caterwaul as someone conjures the stereotype of the illegal unmarried girl rushing across the border before her water breaks so her baby can get all these groovy free welfare state goodies. We point fingers at the border snake gangstas sneaking across the river to sell more drugs to our children.
That’s fine; stereotypes may be odious, but that’s probably because they’re true. They’re not the norm, but they are existent. There’s no question that such things happen far too often. That’s another argument for another space.
But if we were really serious about stopping illegal immigration, we would apply truly draconian penalties to those who hire these people – the giant farm conglomerates, the slaughterhouses, the Washington lobbyists and garden -variety nouveau riche socialites who want house servants for free.
If we were serious about it we would tax the daylights out of money being sent out of the country, no matter how small the amount, and we would withhold foreign aid to countries who are not helping us stem the tide of their citizens entering our country illegally.
If we were serious about it we would, in fact, ask folks for their green cards more often and deport and/or jail those we find here illegally – along with those who brought them here.
We would hold up the notion that U.S. Citizenship is a truly unique and wonderful thing not because of the free goodies, but because of the noble experiment called democracy, that lovely mix of rights and responsibilities, that made chasing those goodies possible. Or to paraphrase Lord Acton, “Liberty is not the power of doing what we like, but the right to do what we ought.”
"I regard the theatre as the greatest of all art forms, the most immediate way in which a human being can share with another the sense of what it is to be a human being." - Oscar Wilde
This was supposed to be a straight review of “Elton John’s Aida,” the latest musical extravaganza at the Arts Center on Hilton Head. That was my plan. But a funny thing happened the day after I saw that big, bold, spectacular production. I saw a small, gentle, delightful production of “You’re A Good Man, Charlie Brown.” (This time, the venue was USCB.) That very same day, my husband was at the WJWJ studio giving his final performance in a daring, provocative production of “True West.” Meanwhile, ARTworks had just wrapped what I’d heard was a terrific, innovative production of “Painted Alice.” (And now I’m completely out of adjectives.)
How could I confine my comments to “Elton John’s Aida” (fabulous as it was!) when folks all over the Lowcountry had been turning themselves inside out for months – physically, emotionally, logistically – to give the gift of theatre, often to audiences far too small in number? Granted, these shows had finished their runs – nothing I could write would help boost attendance now – and “Aida” still had a few weeks left. But I just couldn’t let those other shows fade from memory without some kind of modest homage.
Because making a play is hard. Those who involve themselves in that pursuit do so because they love it, but that doesn’t make it any less difficult. Most people producing theatre here in Beaufort have to do it around their “day jobs” and rarely expect to be paid for their efforts. What they do expect – or hope for, anyway – is an audience. After weeks and months of exhausting work, they expect the people of their community to turn out for them.
And it just doesn’t happen. Not like it should, anyway. There are plenty of reasons why, of course. Perfectly good reasons. We’re too busy. We’re too broke. We’re too tired. We’ve got 1000 channels on TV. We’ve got Netflix. We’ve got Hulu and YouTube. Why should we rouse ourselves from the comfort of our couches, dress ourselves in something that doesn’t involve elastic, and plunder our poor, beleaguered wallets when we’ve got it so good (and cheap) at home?
Hey, I’m just as lazy, low on funds, and addicted to “Glee” as the next gal. I feel your pain. I share your pain. So, don’t worry – this is not one those columns in which the self-righteous Culture Champion mounts her high horse to brow-beat and guilt-trip her readers into “supporting the arts” – as if going to the theatre were your civic duty… some kindly, sacrificial act of altruism. No, folks – this is a sales pitch. I’m not here to tell you why supporting local theatre is good for the community, good for the economy, and good for the cast and crew. I’m here to tell you what’s in it for you.
I’m here to tell you that live theatre, done well, is uniquely exhilarating! And “Elton John’s Aida” is as thrilling a production as you’re likely to see this side of Broadway. The love story of enslaved Nubian princess Aida and Egyptian warrior Radames is a strange, fanciful hybrid – part Old World grandeur, part contemporary kitsch. (Would Sir Elton have it any other way?) The sets and costumes are extravagant – and, again, reflect a mix of influences – and the musical numbers electrifying, from the impeccable singing to the inventive choreography. All of the principals are solid; standouts include Timothy Warmen as the despicable Zoser and newcomer Kyle Scatliffe as a soulful Mereb. Seth Golay does a fine job as Radames, though the character’s transition from callow youth to selfless hero is a bit hard to buy – the script’s fault, not Golay’s. Adrienne Muller as Aida is a wonder; her natural dignity and grace illuminate every scene; her voice is as riveting as her stage presence. But the unexpected revelation is Tara Bruno as Amneris, a stereotypical dumb blond/shallow fashionista (think Sharpay from “High School Musical”), who gradually exposes herself as something else entirely. Amneris’ transformation (or is it ours, as an audience?) is challenging, unsettling and simply breathtaking. “Aida” is unforgettable, and Bruno is a big reason why. (“Aida” runs through May 30th. Visit www.artshhi.com for tickets.)
But a show doesn’t have to be epic, like “Aida,” to tattoo itself on your heart. Take, for instance, the Beaufort Theatre Company’s recent production of “You’re a Good Man, Charlie Brown.” This was a little show with a great big soul. Six actors, spare set pieces in primary colors, good songs sung well, and a heaping helping of wry, poignant Schulzian humor. Simple recipe, delicious results. Unlike at the Arts Center, where most of the actors are professionals brought in from out of town, the BTC is all about local talent. And boy, have we got it! Benji Morgan (a music teacher at Red Cedar Elementary) could not have been more endearing as everybody’s favorite blockhead. And Kristin Brady channeled “Lucy” with dizzy, dazzling aplomb. (She happens to be my daughter’s music teacher at Lady’s Island El. What fun it was to see her shine in this role!) The rest of the cast members (Jordan Culver, Kasey Hummel, Michael Kirby and Darryl Poovey) were marvelous, too. When they all gathered to sing the finale – the sweet, wistful “Happiness” – I wasn’t quite sure why I was so weepy. Maybe because I didn’t want the show to end. Maybe because, for two hours, these six actors had taken me out of myself and into their quirky, beautiful world – and allowed me see through new eyes – and I was grateful.
“True West” at WJWJ was a whole different animal. Dark, menacing and surprisingly hilarious, Sam Shepherd’s black comedy was like “Charlie Brown” on crack. And without the show tunes. My husband Jeff played Austin, the “successful” screenwriter, and Tom Schuster was his brother, Lee, a petty thief, drunkard and longtime loser. Rounding out the cast were Leo Gannon as Saul, the Hollywood agent, and Mary Strick as Mom. Only a little over an hour long, the show moved like a train, propelled from one quick scene to the next by great writing and self-assured performances. (Jeff, Tom and Leo all have decades of experience, while Mary made an impressive theatrical debut as Elaine in last fall’s BTC production of “Arsenic and Old Lace.”) When it was over – quite abruptly – you felt like you had really been through something. I’m still trying to figure out what, exactly. It’s a play that asks more questions than it answers. And it keeps asking them, long after you leave the building. If “Aida” and “Charlie Brown” left me stirred, “True West” left me shaken. As far as I’m concerned, it’s all good.
But I still haven’t sold you, have I? I still haven’t said why you should bother with local theatre, when there are so many other, easier entertainment options out there. Well, I believe it boils down to one thing: When Springsteen sang about it, he called it “the human touch.” (Actually, Springfield sang about it, too – Rick, that is – and his lyrics were, perhaps, more apropos. “Everybody’s talking to computers, they’re all dancing to a drum machine…”) In this age of technology, theatre is one of the few entertainment forms left that’s still… personal. And truly interpersonal. When we watch a movie or a TV show, we are doing just that: watching. As compelling as it may be, it is a passive, one-way proposition. But when we attend a theatrical production, we become part of it… we actually participate with the performers and other theatre artists in the act of creation! By our very presence – our laughter and tears, our rapt silence and spontaneous applause, our thoughts and our feelings and our energy – we feed the actors, who in turn, feed us right back. A connection forms, and it’s powerful. I have been on both sides of this equation, and I know it to be true. Whether on stage or in the audience, when theatre works – really works – it reminds us that we’re all in this together. Life, that is.
And like life, that knowledge is a fine and fleeting thing.