Looking back at 2010, we can review the work of the administration over the past year. Aided by a bickering Congress, Obama has managed to pass several landmark bills which have changed the US landscape.
• Providing universal Health Care
• Repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell
• Overhauling the student loan program
• Instituting financial reform
As always, these bills came with concessions. The extension of the Bush-era tax cuts for two more years places the country in greater debt, and many pieces of legislation are on the cutting room floor for now including Clean Energy and institution of the Dream Act providing amnesty to children of undocumented immigrants.
We can debate the merits of the new laws, and question whether the compromises were worthwhile. To find an answer, let’s see what the arts have to say about this.
The King’s Speech portrays the ascension of George VI to the English throne despite being the younger of two brothers and having a troublesome stutter. Colin Firth plays the young Prince with a mix of nobility and vulgarity – a troubled soul fighting the demons of being a bullied child and ignored son. In a parallel story, Firth’s performance should ascend him to the Oscar throne after being overlooked last year for A Single Man.
In order to achieve the goal of speaking in public forums, the Duke of York conceded to the unorthodox manners of his language tutor. In the movie, he must give in to being treated as a pedestrian rather than royalty. The teacher calls him “Bertie” and requires him to take the classes outside the palace grounds. At first the Prince’s attention to better elocution seems selfishly motivated – doesn’t he have more important things to do? Yet, his conciliations lead to the greater good. By reclaiming his voice, the King comforts a nation on the brink of war and establishes his position in the monarchic line.
Spider-Man: Turn off the Dark has not yet opened, and it is the hottest ticket on Broadway. Julie Taymor’s uncompromising vision has garnered substantial press given the repeated delays to opening night and extensive injuries on the set. Watching the show in previews, it is difficult not to be overcome by the theatrics. This is an experiment that if successful could transform Broadway yet again as the Lion King did.
Part circus, part Greek myth, and part high-tech acrobatics, there are innumerable kinks that need to be worked out including a tightened story line, increased empathy for the characters, and improved singing. Nonetheless one can perceive where Taymor is taking us, and the heights are breathtaking. Weaving this arachnid story has had several negative repercussions – financially on the producers, physically on the actors – and in the end the public will decide with their wallets if it was worth it. This one early viewer believes.
Past the mid-point of a first term in office, we have seen Obama transform from a popular politician to a man that is governing. Politics like theater is the “art of the possible” – two steps forward and one step back. In retrospect, the sacrifices George VI made were unequivocally worthwhile. With Spider-Man, the results are still to be seen. We need to judge if the unrealized vision is worth the give and take.
In the end, we will evaluate Obama’s legislative accomplishments and the attendant compromises by determining if we live in a better society. To me the vision is still sound, and I am more proud to be a citizen. I continue to believe.
December 26, 2010
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Some thoughts on… Accumulating Loss
With the midterm elections of Obama’s first term, the voice of the electorate is clear. The country has moved strongly to the right. Republicans have gained control of the House supported by Tea Party enthusiasm. Democrats barely hold on to the Senate and the Administration concedes the need for a course correction. A pendulum swing in voter preference is not a new phenomenon, and likely indicates discontent with the economy. But the finger pointing can be done in all directions, and it is clear we are all frustrated with a federal government unable to work together for the nation’s good.
As liberal-minded individuals, shouldn’t we be sad about the Democratic loss? Let’s see what the arts have to say about this.
David Fincher’s recent film, The Social Network, is a re-telling of the rise of Mark Zuckerberg from Harvard college student to owner and CEO of Facebook. Based on court documents and interviews with key individuals, Aaron Sorkin’s instant message-like dialogue connects the perspectives of the ideators, visionaries and builders of the site as they watch a nascent concept transform into a behemoth. Fincher moves us through the story at internet speeds helping us see how intelligent and motivated individuals can create a $27 billion company from a $1,000 initial investment and making Zuckerberg the youngest billionaire (under 30) in the world.
The tagline for the movie hints at the morality play underlying this hyper growth – “You don’t get to 500 friends without making some enemies”. Along this ascent, we watch individuals compromise ethics, morals and relationships in pursuit of their dream. The trade-offs portrayed in the movie are not surprising. We have seen on the screen before how willing people are to throw-off ballast from racing ship. What is unexpected is the regret of the protagonists. On the way to the summit, they know they are making egregious missteps which they mourn for a nano-second, but they are unable to stop from climbing.
The movie, Brief Encounter, based on a script by Noel Coward has been re-interpreted for Broadway. The story follows chaste lovers who meet incidentally then surreptitiously at a train station discovering their attraction and then their guilt over the reunions in a month’s time. The production splashes the audience with waves of affection as the couple is overtaken with love. Combining aspects of silent film and minstrel show, Emma Rice’s adaptation is the roller-coaster of an abbreviated romance –confusion of a first encounter, thrill of interim reconnaissance, melancholy of an inevitable departure.
As a closeted gay man in the 1930’s, Coward must have been writing of his own inability to create a meaningful relationship. A feeling of deprivation and longing are only strengthened by the tantalizing notion that cutting existing bonds and societal norms could lead to ultimate happiness. Despite their loveless marriages and suffocating every day lives, the couple comply with their responsibilities in the end. Releasing each other from short-term happiness, and hopefully becoming stronger people in the long-term.
At my brother Wameek’s graduation from Vassar seven years ago, Susan Sontag the keynote speaker said that “life is an accumulation of loss”. This is a fact. The question is how we deal with it. In a world of internet geniuses, Russian oligarchs and Chinese manufacturing tycoons, becoming a billionaire by the age of 40 has never been more real or as fast. But the result of gathering material, political or academic achievement quickly is that the inevitable loss makes one powerless, negative and frustrated. On the other hand, being able to appreciate the equally inevitable gains is a celebration of the small wins of life.
The Facebook founders’ accelerated accumulation early in life made their successive losses seem devastating. By the end of the movie, Zuckerberg despite unquestionable financial success is still looking for a meaningful relationship. In contrast, the star-crossed lovers from Brief Encounter built steady lives with incremental wins – a house, family, kids. For them the loss of a singular love is heart-breaking but also something to be remembered and to grow from.
The loss of Democratic control is disappointing, but perhaps we gained too much too quickly. Taking a step back, we may now need to appreciate what we did achieve – passing ground-breaking legislation on Health Care, stabilizing the world economy, and reviving failed businesses like GM. Like the lover’s encounter, we can celebrate the heady days and go back to our responsibility of piecing together a divided country and ascending from the experience.
November 7, 2010
As liberal-minded individuals, shouldn’t we be sad about the Democratic loss? Let’s see what the arts have to say about this.
David Fincher’s recent film, The Social Network, is a re-telling of the rise of Mark Zuckerberg from Harvard college student to owner and CEO of Facebook. Based on court documents and interviews with key individuals, Aaron Sorkin’s instant message-like dialogue connects the perspectives of the ideators, visionaries and builders of the site as they watch a nascent concept transform into a behemoth. Fincher moves us through the story at internet speeds helping us see how intelligent and motivated individuals can create a $27 billion company from a $1,000 initial investment and making Zuckerberg the youngest billionaire (under 30) in the world.
The tagline for the movie hints at the morality play underlying this hyper growth – “You don’t get to 500 friends without making some enemies”. Along this ascent, we watch individuals compromise ethics, morals and relationships in pursuit of their dream. The trade-offs portrayed in the movie are not surprising. We have seen on the screen before how willing people are to throw-off ballast from racing ship. What is unexpected is the regret of the protagonists. On the way to the summit, they know they are making egregious missteps which they mourn for a nano-second, but they are unable to stop from climbing.
The movie, Brief Encounter, based on a script by Noel Coward has been re-interpreted for Broadway. The story follows chaste lovers who meet incidentally then surreptitiously at a train station discovering their attraction and then their guilt over the reunions in a month’s time. The production splashes the audience with waves of affection as the couple is overtaken with love. Combining aspects of silent film and minstrel show, Emma Rice’s adaptation is the roller-coaster of an abbreviated romance –confusion of a first encounter, thrill of interim reconnaissance, melancholy of an inevitable departure.
As a closeted gay man in the 1930’s, Coward must have been writing of his own inability to create a meaningful relationship. A feeling of deprivation and longing are only strengthened by the tantalizing notion that cutting existing bonds and societal norms could lead to ultimate happiness. Despite their loveless marriages and suffocating every day lives, the couple comply with their responsibilities in the end. Releasing each other from short-term happiness, and hopefully becoming stronger people in the long-term.
At my brother Wameek’s graduation from Vassar seven years ago, Susan Sontag the keynote speaker said that “life is an accumulation of loss”. This is a fact. The question is how we deal with it. In a world of internet geniuses, Russian oligarchs and Chinese manufacturing tycoons, becoming a billionaire by the age of 40 has never been more real or as fast. But the result of gathering material, political or academic achievement quickly is that the inevitable loss makes one powerless, negative and frustrated. On the other hand, being able to appreciate the equally inevitable gains is a celebration of the small wins of life.
The Facebook founders’ accelerated accumulation early in life made their successive losses seem devastating. By the end of the movie, Zuckerberg despite unquestionable financial success is still looking for a meaningful relationship. In contrast, the star-crossed lovers from Brief Encounter built steady lives with incremental wins – a house, family, kids. For them the loss of a singular love is heart-breaking but also something to be remembered and to grow from.
The loss of Democratic control is disappointing, but perhaps we gained too much too quickly. Taking a step back, we may now need to appreciate what we did achieve – passing ground-breaking legislation on Health Care, stabilizing the world economy, and reviving failed businesses like GM. Like the lover’s encounter, we can celebrate the heady days and go back to our responsibility of piecing together a divided country and ascending from the experience.
November 7, 2010
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Some thoughts on… Jumping In
Two weeks in Kenya and Tanzania with seven days and six nights of safari provides fascinating insight into animal behavior. The vacation, with our friends Jerry, Wai, Rishi and his mother, was through Nairobi, Mombasa, Ngorongoro Crater, Northern Serengeti and Zanzibar.
After days of viewing surreal landscape, taking in breathtaking vistas, and engaging with wildlife, it’s natural to reflect on how similar human interaction is to animals - lionesses protecting their cubs; ostriches strutting to attract a mate; hippos lying on top of each other in the water. The most striking interaction for us though was watching the migration of wildebeest. Due to annual rain patterns, wildebeest migrate over the vast plains of the Serengeti from central Tanzania up to southern Kenya and then back down. On their journey they follow greener grasses to the north crossing several rivers to get to their Elysian fields of the Masai Mara.
Not particularly picturesque beings, the creatures remarkable talent is survival by maintaining strength of their herd. Their movements can be orchestrated – forming a single line to wander down a hillside – or haphazard – fleeing from an approaching airplane - but they always move together. The Mara River is where we saw the crossing of our herd of wildebeest that we had been tracking for the past three days.
Any crossing is fraught with danger from hungry crocodiles, uncooperative hippos, or the inability to dive and swim safely without breaking a leg. It takes a considerable amount of time for the wildebeests to determine if they should cross. They delay or change their mind with the slightest adjustment of the wind or the smallest ripples in the water (thus 3 days of waiting). As our guide Ishmael put it, “They are very skittish, but you would be too if your life were on the line.”
But when they do make a decision to traverse, they go with all their heart. The entire herd, 1000 – 2000 individuals at a time, will run to the crossing point that was chosen and just jump in. They know that there is less danger for any one individual if they all go in at once – there is strength in numbers and though one or two may get hurt – those are reasonable odds to preserve the larger community.
In the US, we are faced with two major issues that need crossing.
New York City and the country are debating the building of a Muslim community center and mosque near the site of the twin towers. The edifice is meant to symbolize tolerance, yet it has embroiled the nation into a debate suffused with fear of Islam and memories of 9/11. Some see the building of Cordoba House, the name of the center, so close to Ground Zero as a slap in the face to the families who lost members. The conservative right has used the issue as a way to stir anti-terrorist fervor. The local community board has approved the construction, and national religious groups have endorsed the idea.
Recently, Obama joined the debate proclaiming “I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. Ground zero is, indeed, hallowed ground. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are.” [New York Times, August 14, 2010]
Mayor Bloomberg (a Republican) who historically has given his strong backing to the cause declared that “This proposed mosque and community center in Lower Manhattan is as important a test of the separation of church and state as we may see in our lifetime, and I applaud President Obama’s clarion defense of the freedom of religion tonight.” [New York Times, August 14, 2010]
The mosque is moving forward, despite the protestations of conservative politicians from around the country who may never have set foot in Lower Manhattan. This is a good path and is a testament to the constitutional separation of church and state. American Muslims should be proud of a country that supports minority rights despite the stream of hatred against the site.
The second issue has bubbled up across the country in California. In a striking ruling, Vaughn R. Walker, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, overturned Proposition 8, the California referendum banning same-sex marriage. In a 136-page well-reasoned decision, the Judge found that the basis for the Proposition was unconstitutional because “Animus towards gays and lesbians or simply a belief that a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women… is not a proper basis on which to legislate.” A law based on the hatred of one portion of the population for another is not the foundation on which our country is based.
The impressive part of the ruling is that the beginning 109 pages are devoted to the “Finding of Facts” which is typically uncontested findings from the broad review conducted by the court. Written in a clear and logical tone, the order is surprisingly easy to read and can be found at the New York Times website. Similar to Cordoba House, the case brings up the question of separation of church and state and protection of minority rights. A primary argument from religious groups is that granting marriage rights to same-sex unions diminishes heterosexual marriages and lead to non-productive unions which can’t produce children. As Walker points out:
“Marriage in the United States has always been a civil matter. Civil authorities may permit religious leaders to solemnize marriages but not to determine who may enter or leave a civil marriage. Religious leaders may determine independently whether to recognize a civil marriage or divorce but that recognition or lack thereof has no effect on the relationship under state law.”
Religion can sanctify a marriage but the church has no ability to prevent the state from authorizing marriage. The fact that the same-sex union does not produce off-spring is irrelevant since as Walker relates:
“Never has the state inquired into procreative capacity or intent before issuing a marriage license; indeed, a marriage license is more than a license to have procreative sexual intercourse… [I]t would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse.”
The ruling is impressive but the arguments still need to make it through Circuit Court and the Supreme Court before becoming the law of the land.
One group thrown at the center of these two debates is the American Muslim Community. Backing the construction of Cordoba House fundamentally uses the same arguments – “separation of church and state” and “equal protection” – as the issue of gay marriage. By making a case for one, it implies belief in the principles and support for the other.
The debates are interesting because the discussion has evolved beyond liberal versus conservative distinctions. Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich (conservative Republicans) are against the ruling and the construction, while Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Mayor Michael Bloomberg (moderate Republicans) are supportive of both.
The Islamic community can not choose to be on one side of the Cordoba argument and argue against the other. Either we need to embrace the greener grasses of minority rights protection or we choose to stay on the drought side of the river. To maintain the strength of the community, it’s time for moderate Muslims to jump in and start swimming across these waters.
August 14, 2010
After days of viewing surreal landscape, taking in breathtaking vistas, and engaging with wildlife, it’s natural to reflect on how similar human interaction is to animals - lionesses protecting their cubs; ostriches strutting to attract a mate; hippos lying on top of each other in the water. The most striking interaction for us though was watching the migration of wildebeest. Due to annual rain patterns, wildebeest migrate over the vast plains of the Serengeti from central Tanzania up to southern Kenya and then back down. On their journey they follow greener grasses to the north crossing several rivers to get to their Elysian fields of the Masai Mara.
Not particularly picturesque beings, the creatures remarkable talent is survival by maintaining strength of their herd. Their movements can be orchestrated – forming a single line to wander down a hillside – or haphazard – fleeing from an approaching airplane - but they always move together. The Mara River is where we saw the crossing of our herd of wildebeest that we had been tracking for the past three days.
Any crossing is fraught with danger from hungry crocodiles, uncooperative hippos, or the inability to dive and swim safely without breaking a leg. It takes a considerable amount of time for the wildebeests to determine if they should cross. They delay or change their mind with the slightest adjustment of the wind or the smallest ripples in the water (thus 3 days of waiting). As our guide Ishmael put it, “They are very skittish, but you would be too if your life were on the line.”
But when they do make a decision to traverse, they go with all their heart. The entire herd, 1000 – 2000 individuals at a time, will run to the crossing point that was chosen and just jump in. They know that there is less danger for any one individual if they all go in at once – there is strength in numbers and though one or two may get hurt – those are reasonable odds to preserve the larger community.
In the US, we are faced with two major issues that need crossing.
New York City and the country are debating the building of a Muslim community center and mosque near the site of the twin towers. The edifice is meant to symbolize tolerance, yet it has embroiled the nation into a debate suffused with fear of Islam and memories of 9/11. Some see the building of Cordoba House, the name of the center, so close to Ground Zero as a slap in the face to the families who lost members. The conservative right has used the issue as a way to stir anti-terrorist fervor. The local community board has approved the construction, and national religious groups have endorsed the idea.
Recently, Obama joined the debate proclaiming “I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. Ground zero is, indeed, hallowed ground. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are.” [New York Times, August 14, 2010]
Mayor Bloomberg (a Republican) who historically has given his strong backing to the cause declared that “This proposed mosque and community center in Lower Manhattan is as important a test of the separation of church and state as we may see in our lifetime, and I applaud President Obama’s clarion defense of the freedom of religion tonight.” [New York Times, August 14, 2010]
The mosque is moving forward, despite the protestations of conservative politicians from around the country who may never have set foot in Lower Manhattan. This is a good path and is a testament to the constitutional separation of church and state. American Muslims should be proud of a country that supports minority rights despite the stream of hatred against the site.
The second issue has bubbled up across the country in California. In a striking ruling, Vaughn R. Walker, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, overturned Proposition 8, the California referendum banning same-sex marriage. In a 136-page well-reasoned decision, the Judge found that the basis for the Proposition was unconstitutional because “Animus towards gays and lesbians or simply a belief that a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women… is not a proper basis on which to legislate.” A law based on the hatred of one portion of the population for another is not the foundation on which our country is based.
The impressive part of the ruling is that the beginning 109 pages are devoted to the “Finding of Facts” which is typically uncontested findings from the broad review conducted by the court. Written in a clear and logical tone, the order is surprisingly easy to read and can be found at the New York Times website. Similar to Cordoba House, the case brings up the question of separation of church and state and protection of minority rights. A primary argument from religious groups is that granting marriage rights to same-sex unions diminishes heterosexual marriages and lead to non-productive unions which can’t produce children. As Walker points out:
“Marriage in the United States has always been a civil matter. Civil authorities may permit religious leaders to solemnize marriages but not to determine who may enter or leave a civil marriage. Religious leaders may determine independently whether to recognize a civil marriage or divorce but that recognition or lack thereof has no effect on the relationship under state law.”
Religion can sanctify a marriage but the church has no ability to prevent the state from authorizing marriage. The fact that the same-sex union does not produce off-spring is irrelevant since as Walker relates:
“Never has the state inquired into procreative capacity or intent before issuing a marriage license; indeed, a marriage license is more than a license to have procreative sexual intercourse… [I]t would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse.”
The ruling is impressive but the arguments still need to make it through Circuit Court and the Supreme Court before becoming the law of the land.
One group thrown at the center of these two debates is the American Muslim Community. Backing the construction of Cordoba House fundamentally uses the same arguments – “separation of church and state” and “equal protection” – as the issue of gay marriage. By making a case for one, it implies belief in the principles and support for the other.
The debates are interesting because the discussion has evolved beyond liberal versus conservative distinctions. Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich (conservative Republicans) are against the ruling and the construction, while Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Mayor Michael Bloomberg (moderate Republicans) are supportive of both.
The Islamic community can not choose to be on one side of the Cordoba argument and argue against the other. Either we need to embrace the greener grasses of minority rights protection or we choose to stay on the drought side of the river. To maintain the strength of the community, it’s time for moderate Muslims to jump in and start swimming across these waters.
August 14, 2010
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Some thoughts on… Choosing Our Destiny
The Obama Administration is implementing controls over unprecedented areas of society for the United States. As the government extends its reach, diverse voices have raised objections to the visible hand of the State – judicial arguments are working their way up to the Supreme Court to challenge the mandatory extension of healthcare to all US citizens; economic arguments proliferate against financial reforms on Wall Street to prevent conflicts like Goldman Sachs taking both sides on the sales of Paulson’s synthetic CDO’s.. Undoubtedly, with an open deep sea spigot spewing crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico, once that problem is resolved, further restrictions will be placed on drilling.
But is it not hubris for the government to believe that it should control and regulate these things? The neo-classical economic argument is that governments should interfere only when there is a public good, i.e. it is not in an individual or organizational interest to solve a particular problem. Shouldn’t we just let the events play out and let either markets, companies or individuals resolve these matters? Let’s see what the Arts have to say about these questions.
Sherri Renee Scott’s new show Everyday Rapture introduces us to the wide-eyed story of a Broadway semi-star as she moves from small time Oklahoma to Manhattan. Strutting her vocals and legs, Scott endears us to a proverbial tale – a person struggling to break from the espoused ideals of her conservative upbringing and to reconcile them with the morals of an adopted, cosmopolitan home. AIDS, abortion and fame are a few of the cherished memories she weaves into what one assumes is a semi-biographical story.
At the beginning of the program, we find her balancing two contradictory ethics – “The world was created for me” versus “I am just a speck of dust”. The first ideal plays to the narcissism of New York – demanding self-determinism and unbridled passion to succeed. The second commands a recognition that we move forward only through the communal interplay and dependence on the greater populace. Alone we are blown aimlessly by the universal winds, together we form permanence. True happiness is not found in the glory of an ephemeral Broadway hit or of an afterlife filled with angels. Instead, we find it through daily interactions – the minute joys of being mindful to the raptures we discover everyday. Scott’s show transcends us to this epiphany with glamour, glee and gravitas. It’s a jeweled performance not to be missed.
The final season of Lost completed this past week. Over its six year run, the series tangoed with two primary arguments: 1) Should people be driven by faith or reason to understand the secrets of existence and 2) Are we bound by destiny or do we have the ability to choose the outcomes of our lives. Stranded on a desert island due to a plane crash, the characters warp and weft through the two themes determined to live together and eventually die alone. The mythology is grand with crooked mysteries resulting in humanistic revelations.
Through the episodes, we find ourselves also lost and eventually found in the intricate stories of science fiction, boundless evil and human kindness. At the end of the interlaced plots, the storytellers provide a clear answer to the two arguments – people must balance faith and reason in order to choose their destiny. Although selected by circumstance to arrive on the island, the characters purposefully struggle to be together and choose to overcome their fate by meeting in the next life to reach enlightenment. This is Nirvana – the realization that we thrive only because we are linked and ultimate happiness is not individual gain but collective mindfulness that we are connected.
The government’s role on regulating finance, health care and the environment is contentious because at face none of the underlying issues are legally wrong – banks repeatedly buy and sell the same assets; people can choose not to have insurance; companies need to recover resources to fulfill the population’s needs. Goldman Sachs and British Petroleum may not have done anything illegal, but their motives seem ethically wrong, because they somehow go against our sense of community and need for watching out for each other. The actions are too self-oriented without regard to the concerns of the society that supports these companies and individuals.
Our regulatory and legal landscapes have to catch up with our internal recognition that the world was not created for us alone—we are but specks dust. We can do this by moving beyond the focus on just our desires to connecting with individuals who also suffer or gain from our actions. Banks should not profit from selling an asset that they are also betting against. Energy companies should have an equal array of technology back-ups to halt oil removal as they do to extract it. An individual not carrying health insurance is similar to a driver not having car insurance – a liability to society. Unlike the characters in Lost, we will likely die alone, but we can choose how we live together.
May 31, 2010
But is it not hubris for the government to believe that it should control and regulate these things? The neo-classical economic argument is that governments should interfere only when there is a public good, i.e. it is not in an individual or organizational interest to solve a particular problem. Shouldn’t we just let the events play out and let either markets, companies or individuals resolve these matters? Let’s see what the Arts have to say about these questions.
Sherri Renee Scott’s new show Everyday Rapture introduces us to the wide-eyed story of a Broadway semi-star as she moves from small time Oklahoma to Manhattan. Strutting her vocals and legs, Scott endears us to a proverbial tale – a person struggling to break from the espoused ideals of her conservative upbringing and to reconcile them with the morals of an adopted, cosmopolitan home. AIDS, abortion and fame are a few of the cherished memories she weaves into what one assumes is a semi-biographical story.
At the beginning of the program, we find her balancing two contradictory ethics – “The world was created for me” versus “I am just a speck of dust”. The first ideal plays to the narcissism of New York – demanding self-determinism and unbridled passion to succeed. The second commands a recognition that we move forward only through the communal interplay and dependence on the greater populace. Alone we are blown aimlessly by the universal winds, together we form permanence. True happiness is not found in the glory of an ephemeral Broadway hit or of an afterlife filled with angels. Instead, we find it through daily interactions – the minute joys of being mindful to the raptures we discover everyday. Scott’s show transcends us to this epiphany with glamour, glee and gravitas. It’s a jeweled performance not to be missed.
The final season of Lost completed this past week. Over its six year run, the series tangoed with two primary arguments: 1) Should people be driven by faith or reason to understand the secrets of existence and 2) Are we bound by destiny or do we have the ability to choose the outcomes of our lives. Stranded on a desert island due to a plane crash, the characters warp and weft through the two themes determined to live together and eventually die alone. The mythology is grand with crooked mysteries resulting in humanistic revelations.
Through the episodes, we find ourselves also lost and eventually found in the intricate stories of science fiction, boundless evil and human kindness. At the end of the interlaced plots, the storytellers provide a clear answer to the two arguments – people must balance faith and reason in order to choose their destiny. Although selected by circumstance to arrive on the island, the characters purposefully struggle to be together and choose to overcome their fate by meeting in the next life to reach enlightenment. This is Nirvana – the realization that we thrive only because we are linked and ultimate happiness is not individual gain but collective mindfulness that we are connected.
The government’s role on regulating finance, health care and the environment is contentious because at face none of the underlying issues are legally wrong – banks repeatedly buy and sell the same assets; people can choose not to have insurance; companies need to recover resources to fulfill the population’s needs. Goldman Sachs and British Petroleum may not have done anything illegal, but their motives seem ethically wrong, because they somehow go against our sense of community and need for watching out for each other. The actions are too self-oriented without regard to the concerns of the society that supports these companies and individuals.
Our regulatory and legal landscapes have to catch up with our internal recognition that the world was not created for us alone—we are but specks dust. We can do this by moving beyond the focus on just our desires to connecting with individuals who also suffer or gain from our actions. Banks should not profit from selling an asset that they are also betting against. Energy companies should have an equal array of technology back-ups to halt oil removal as they do to extract it. An individual not carrying health insurance is similar to a driver not having car insurance – a liability to society. Unlike the characters in Lost, we will likely die alone, but we can choose how we live together.
May 31, 2010
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Some thoughts on… Letting Go
I attended a goodbye party of two close colleagues on Friday. They were individuals with whom I have partnered for the past 13 years and who have been coaches, mentors and friends. We all know that our friendship will continue, and so this is not a “goodbye” in any way. But there is a certain melancholy in knowing that we will not be interacting on a daily basis moving forward.
With any departure, whether it is instantaneous (the end of an argument), temporary (the parting of good friends) or permanent (the death of a loved one), there is a sense of loss, of passage, and of change. We know we must spend the appropriate time acknowledging the alterations and understanding the revised world. But equally imperative, we should know not dwell on the past wishing for a revised set of circumstances. In the end, we have to let go and free ourselves from these attachments.
Inherently this is a necessary and difficult action, but why is it so important to let go?
In the musical Yank!, two WWII GI’s meet, fall in love and lose each other through the progression of the war. The show captures the aching for companionship, the longing for fraternity and the desire for purpose of a new, squad of recruits thrown into a drawn-out battle in the South Pacific. The star-crossed heroes attempt to defy the hypocritical strictures of military life that forbids homosexuality and at the same time inherently requires a draft to fulfill its quota of bodies. But this is not a time period for acceptance, and by holding on to the relationship longer than feasible, they create a false reality of stasis and permanence.
In the end, we forget the same-gender relationship of the protagonists, and view the show as symbolic of any individuals unable to live together due to societal circumstances, e.g. race, ethnicity, religion. The production story line is tautly held and the minimalist sets support imagining the varied settings of the two acts. In addition, the generation-appropriate music and lock-step lyrics of the production make the show a welcome entry into the musical theater repertoire. The run at the York Theater has closed, but people should be able to catch the show in its on Broadway reincarnation in the Fall.
Sondheim on Sondheim is a celebration of a Stage giant’s music, genius and wit. Recognized as the reigning composer of musical theater, Sondheim himself provides narrative on his work through the decades. Revealed in this intimate structure is a man who is obsessed with the creation of precise, finely drawn art, and simultaneously one who recognizes the eventual need to free the work to the public for scorn or acclaim.
The narrative is interspersed by performances from a stellar cast headlined by Barbara Cook, Tom Wopat and Vanessa Williams. Cook and Williams shine in their articulation and punctuated delivery of the Sondheim material. Although the high-tech production is distracting and clouds over the music at points, overall the talent of the composer and performers gloriously shines through.
Finally, in Xi’an, China, we heard a story from our guide. She related how two monks – one older and one younger – were taking a pilgrimage to another temple. Walking through the countryside, they encountered a brook through which they needed to wade. At the river-side, there was a young girl also looking to cross. Taking her hand, the older monk walked her through the current to the other side, and then they both bid her goodbye.
Upon reaching the temple by nightfall, the younger monk said, “I must report you now to the others, for you know it is forbidden to touch a woman.” The older man, looked thoughtfully at his companion, put his hand on the youth’s shoulder and replied, “Do as you wish but reflect on your motivation, for I know that I have already let her go.”
By holding on too long to our most precious desires, creations or relationships, we deceive ourselves that we can control the changing environment and alter the world to the best outcome. A song writer unwilling to share their art until it is perfect is analogous to a debater holding to an untenable argument, lovers defying an oppressive reality, a monk dreaming of an alternate path or a child refusing to accept the death of a parent. In all these cases, personal growth is hindered because people refuse to move on.
The fallacy is that we grow by holding on to things more tightly. The important lesson of moving on, is not that we shouldn’t perfect art, fight for love or argue passionately, but is that we are better people by knowing when and how to progress to the next level of learning by letting go of what we cherish and seeing how the external world reacts to our actions. This can be frightening, because it may result in immediate loss
Even though my fellow Principals and friends have left from the practice, by letting go this is an opportunity for them and us to grow.
April 25, 2010
With any departure, whether it is instantaneous (the end of an argument), temporary (the parting of good friends) or permanent (the death of a loved one), there is a sense of loss, of passage, and of change. We know we must spend the appropriate time acknowledging the alterations and understanding the revised world. But equally imperative, we should know not dwell on the past wishing for a revised set of circumstances. In the end, we have to let go and free ourselves from these attachments.
Inherently this is a necessary and difficult action, but why is it so important to let go?
In the musical Yank!, two WWII GI’s meet, fall in love and lose each other through the progression of the war. The show captures the aching for companionship, the longing for fraternity and the desire for purpose of a new, squad of recruits thrown into a drawn-out battle in the South Pacific. The star-crossed heroes attempt to defy the hypocritical strictures of military life that forbids homosexuality and at the same time inherently requires a draft to fulfill its quota of bodies. But this is not a time period for acceptance, and by holding on to the relationship longer than feasible, they create a false reality of stasis and permanence.
In the end, we forget the same-gender relationship of the protagonists, and view the show as symbolic of any individuals unable to live together due to societal circumstances, e.g. race, ethnicity, religion. The production story line is tautly held and the minimalist sets support imagining the varied settings of the two acts. In addition, the generation-appropriate music and lock-step lyrics of the production make the show a welcome entry into the musical theater repertoire. The run at the York Theater has closed, but people should be able to catch the show in its on Broadway reincarnation in the Fall.
Sondheim on Sondheim is a celebration of a Stage giant’s music, genius and wit. Recognized as the reigning composer of musical theater, Sondheim himself provides narrative on his work through the decades. Revealed in this intimate structure is a man who is obsessed with the creation of precise, finely drawn art, and simultaneously one who recognizes the eventual need to free the work to the public for scorn or acclaim.
The narrative is interspersed by performances from a stellar cast headlined by Barbara Cook, Tom Wopat and Vanessa Williams. Cook and Williams shine in their articulation and punctuated delivery of the Sondheim material. Although the high-tech production is distracting and clouds over the music at points, overall the talent of the composer and performers gloriously shines through.
Finally, in Xi’an, China, we heard a story from our guide. She related how two monks – one older and one younger – were taking a pilgrimage to another temple. Walking through the countryside, they encountered a brook through which they needed to wade. At the river-side, there was a young girl also looking to cross. Taking her hand, the older monk walked her through the current to the other side, and then they both bid her goodbye.
Upon reaching the temple by nightfall, the younger monk said, “I must report you now to the others, for you know it is forbidden to touch a woman.” The older man, looked thoughtfully at his companion, put his hand on the youth’s shoulder and replied, “Do as you wish but reflect on your motivation, for I know that I have already let her go.”
By holding on too long to our most precious desires, creations or relationships, we deceive ourselves that we can control the changing environment and alter the world to the best outcome. A song writer unwilling to share their art until it is perfect is analogous to a debater holding to an untenable argument, lovers defying an oppressive reality, a monk dreaming of an alternate path or a child refusing to accept the death of a parent. In all these cases, personal growth is hindered because people refuse to move on.
The fallacy is that we grow by holding on to things more tightly. The important lesson of moving on, is not that we shouldn’t perfect art, fight for love or argue passionately, but is that we are better people by knowing when and how to progress to the next level of learning by letting go of what we cherish and seeing how the external world reacts to our actions. This can be frightening, because it may result in immediate loss
Even though my fellow Principals and friends have left from the practice, by letting go this is an opportunity for them and us to grow.
April 25, 2010
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Some thoughts on… Accomplishments
Obama is passing a historic health care bill to cover 30 million more citizens. This is the greatest achievement of his Office so far because it pulls off legislation that defied seventy years of attempt by over 10 Presidents. With our visit to China we completed a personal triumph having finally visited the New7Wonders Foundation's seven wonders of the world. (Pictures below)
Why should we consider both of these activities an accomplishment?
In its “Different Values” campaign, HSBC shows multiple pictures with a common word demonstrating how people may view a similar concept in varied ways. One of these ads is for the word ‘Accomplishment’ showing three pictures – a beauty queen accepting an award, a college graduate, and an astronaut landing on the moon. People may question whether these are actual triumphs, yet each one demonstrates two criteria to deem them as accomplishments – internal achievement and external validation.
A personal desire to succeed or achieve is integral to any victory. Individuals must want to realize a certain dream or moral imperative to bring about an accomplishment. Without this personal desire, nothing can be completed. The astronaut wants to stand on an alternate celestial body, the graduate wishes to gather academic prowess, and the beauty queen wishes to express her perspective. Yet, by itself the individual goal is arbitrary – why did we just visit the seven wonders rather than 8 or 15 or 50?
This is why external validation is also required. There must be some recognition by the general public that the action is sufficiently compelling. A person walking down the street requires personal determination but is likely not viewed by others as a true feat. Our visiting the seven wonders is not a significant act, but it is recognized by an independent body as a challenging deed.
On the other hand, Obama’s accomplishment – moving health care from a privilege to a basic human right – is truly momentous because it demonstrates personal imperative and simultaneously transcends external validation. Many people support the bill and many disagree, yet the legislation is one that cuts through political banter to carry out “the great unfinished business of our society” as described by the late Senator Ted Kennedy. Setting aside Tea-Party protests and last minute wrangling, Speaker Pelosi and the Congress have forged through a bill that defines the moral character of our country.
History writes itself in small details and grand gestures. Bravo to the Government for its grand gesture. Pictures of our small detail are below.
March 21, 2010
The Great Wall (2010)
Petra (2009)
Christ Concepcion (2007)
Taj Mahal (2002)
The Colliseum (2001)
Great Pyramids (1999)
Macchu Picchu (1997)
Chichen-Itza (1995)
Why should we consider both of these activities an accomplishment?
In its “Different Values” campaign, HSBC shows multiple pictures with a common word demonstrating how people may view a similar concept in varied ways. One of these ads is for the word ‘Accomplishment’ showing three pictures – a beauty queen accepting an award, a college graduate, and an astronaut landing on the moon. People may question whether these are actual triumphs, yet each one demonstrates two criteria to deem them as accomplishments – internal achievement and external validation.
A personal desire to succeed or achieve is integral to any victory. Individuals must want to realize a certain dream or moral imperative to bring about an accomplishment. Without this personal desire, nothing can be completed. The astronaut wants to stand on an alternate celestial body, the graduate wishes to gather academic prowess, and the beauty queen wishes to express her perspective. Yet, by itself the individual goal is arbitrary – why did we just visit the seven wonders rather than 8 or 15 or 50?
This is why external validation is also required. There must be some recognition by the general public that the action is sufficiently compelling. A person walking down the street requires personal determination but is likely not viewed by others as a true feat. Our visiting the seven wonders is not a significant act, but it is recognized by an independent body as a challenging deed.
On the other hand, Obama’s accomplishment – moving health care from a privilege to a basic human right – is truly momentous because it demonstrates personal imperative and simultaneously transcends external validation. Many people support the bill and many disagree, yet the legislation is one that cuts through political banter to carry out “the great unfinished business of our society” as described by the late Senator Ted Kennedy. Setting aside Tea-Party protests and last minute wrangling, Speaker Pelosi and the Congress have forged through a bill that defines the moral character of our country.
History writes itself in small details and grand gestures. Bravo to the Government for its grand gesture. Pictures of our small detail are below.
March 21, 2010
The Great Wall (2010)
Petra (2009)
Christ Concepcion (2007)
Taj Mahal (2002)
The Colliseum (2001)
Great Pyramids (1999)
Macchu Picchu (1997)
Chichen-Itza (1995)
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Some thoughts on… the Middle Kingdom
There is a reason travel is enlightening – it can reverse your perspective. Having been to a number of places around the world, it was primarily due to Klaus’ MBA class that we decided to spend two weeks in China. We had prejudices, but it is difficult to consider oneself a citizen of the world without experiencing the most populous country on Earth.
Middle Kingdom is a literal translation of the country’s name "Zhongguo" (中国/中國), and I arrived with preconceived notions: runaway economic growth at the expense of environmental destruction, government control trampling individual rights, Mordor in the midst of Middle Earth. In the end, some biases proved true, yet the epiphany was despite these downsides the country remained wondrous. How did this nation defy expectations?
Symbolism is a part of Chinese philosophy, which is apparent even in the written sinography that are character representations. Borrowing from the Daoist ba gua framework which denotes fundamental principles of reality and is related to the wu xing or five elements, I’ll try to describe the four cities we visited. It is hubris to characterize a nation of 1 billion people, by visiting only four cities, but the impressions are striking and worth describing at least some parts of this great dragon.
The eight concepts of ba gua are inter-related and make up the structure of the universe. Lost fans will recognize the picture as the entrance marker to the eight island stations.
Beijing (Earth), our first stop, is a city of conflicts in surprising harmony. The Chinese uphold balance as a pre-eminent virtue which is witnessed in its seeming contradictions – soldiers marching in formation across Tiannamen Square; a shiny new airport surpassing any in the US; old villages torn down and replaced by shopping malls; a GPS-controlled electronic guide to the Forbidden City – this mixture of historic and innovative, revolutionary and traditional is all accommodated by Beijing. The city seems to receive all these different energies and yields to hold them all.
Xi’an (Fire) has been chosen as a Special Economic Zone for the Western provinces. This designation has led to hyper-development of the city, with construction rivaling parts of Dubai. The city has grown from 4 to 8 million people in the past 5 years. The Chinese businessmen in the packed lobby of the Shangri-La Hotel during a Thursday afternoon tea are busy creating the new frontier. They smoke up the room with chatter, deals and cigarettes. The terra-cotta warriors in the outskirts of the city, and the Muslim market in the city-center still reminiscent of the times when the silk route ended in Xi’an are the primary cultural poles. The worry is that the frenzied construction comes at the cost of quality and is only a real-estate bubble. If this fire is extinguished by an earthquake either seismic or economic, all that may be left is smoke. Incredibly, this is one of ten other Tier 2 cities in the country that are being grown in a similar fashion.
Hong Kong (Metal/ Lake) is an old pair of shoes that fit comfortably. Landing in a city where the residents speak English and old money pervades, provides a sense of satisfaction. Signs still use Chinese characters (although people speak Cantonese) and the city is a protectorate of the mainland, but freedom of the press exists, and access to Facebook through the internet is once again possible. There is content in the air. People are happy and the the economy is rebounding from the financial crisis. But there is a sense of complacency amongst the people – a resigned air of the glory days being in the past, similar to Europe. Although much of the mainland aspires to Hong Kong’s wealth, this city is stagnating. Full integration with China will be in 2030, but already the government is looking past this metropolis. The communists will pick the fruits of Hong Kong but will not invest, because this is not the future of the Middle Kingdom.
Shanghai (Wood/ Thunder) is the future and excitement of China. Similar in feel to New York, the World Expo this summer, has been a reason for the government to invest and clean up the city. Construction is rampant and overwhelming. One plan takes the extensive highway next to the river (located alongside the Bund) and moves it underground. The leadership started this revision 3 years ago, and the structure will finalize by end March. In contrast, Boston took 20 years to do complete a similar project along its riverbank. The revolution is that people are so preoccupied making money they have ignored politics. The apparent division between capitalism driving the people and communism managing the State can be seen across China but is most striking here.
We concluded that “Red” China has transformed into “Ferrari Red” China. Manufacturing is replacing agriculture. Materialism is the new manifesto. Ermenegildo Zegna mega-stores are the temples. Currency is the new comrade. As with any makeover, this change comes at a cost. The Culture Revolution stripped much of the country of its deep heritage, and the hyper-economic affluence has been the only way to fill the vacuum of sophistication.
The pursuit of the all-powerful RMB makes the country feel soul-less. This mentality might have been on what our pre-conceived notions of Mordor were based. Conspicuous consumption is the norm these days - mixing expensive Bordeaux wines with coke, ordering excessive food just to throw it away, destroying traditional villages to create luxury apartments; flooding the borders into Hong Kong to go shopping.
But the epiphany was that the soul resides with its people many of whom live outside these urban centers. The heritage has not been forgotten just suppressed under money and commercialism. This is evident in the resurgence of a foodie culture – shanghainese cuisine mixing black poppy and hairy crab, peking duck with little fat and crisp skin, or mutton soup with glass noodles in Xi’an. Along with the Chinese characters which Mao tried to remove, these traditions have survived repression. If the government were to place emphasis on art, theater, music, and literature, the culture would again flourish.
In the next few decades the country and the people will need to question which path to take: continue on the rocket trajectory of consumerism or pause to re-establish historic customs and rituals. The more the government transfers people into the urban centers and encourages materialism, the more it walks down the first path. It may be time for China to re-balance again.
March 14, 2010
Middle Kingdom is a literal translation of the country’s name "Zhongguo" (中国/中國), and I arrived with preconceived notions: runaway economic growth at the expense of environmental destruction, government control trampling individual rights, Mordor in the midst of Middle Earth. In the end, some biases proved true, yet the epiphany was despite these downsides the country remained wondrous. How did this nation defy expectations?
Symbolism is a part of Chinese philosophy, which is apparent even in the written sinography that are character representations. Borrowing from the Daoist ba gua framework which denotes fundamental principles of reality and is related to the wu xing or five elements, I’ll try to describe the four cities we visited. It is hubris to characterize a nation of 1 billion people, by visiting only four cities, but the impressions are striking and worth describing at least some parts of this great dragon.
The eight concepts of ba gua are inter-related and make up the structure of the universe. Lost fans will recognize the picture as the entrance marker to the eight island stations.
Beijing (Earth), our first stop, is a city of conflicts in surprising harmony. The Chinese uphold balance as a pre-eminent virtue which is witnessed in its seeming contradictions – soldiers marching in formation across Tiannamen Square; a shiny new airport surpassing any in the US; old villages torn down and replaced by shopping malls; a GPS-controlled electronic guide to the Forbidden City – this mixture of historic and innovative, revolutionary and traditional is all accommodated by Beijing. The city seems to receive all these different energies and yields to hold them all.
Xi’an (Fire) has been chosen as a Special Economic Zone for the Western provinces. This designation has led to hyper-development of the city, with construction rivaling parts of Dubai. The city has grown from 4 to 8 million people in the past 5 years. The Chinese businessmen in the packed lobby of the Shangri-La Hotel during a Thursday afternoon tea are busy creating the new frontier. They smoke up the room with chatter, deals and cigarettes. The terra-cotta warriors in the outskirts of the city, and the Muslim market in the city-center still reminiscent of the times when the silk route ended in Xi’an are the primary cultural poles. The worry is that the frenzied construction comes at the cost of quality and is only a real-estate bubble. If this fire is extinguished by an earthquake either seismic or economic, all that may be left is smoke. Incredibly, this is one of ten other Tier 2 cities in the country that are being grown in a similar fashion.
Hong Kong (Metal/ Lake) is an old pair of shoes that fit comfortably. Landing in a city where the residents speak English and old money pervades, provides a sense of satisfaction. Signs still use Chinese characters (although people speak Cantonese) and the city is a protectorate of the mainland, but freedom of the press exists, and access to Facebook through the internet is once again possible. There is content in the air. People are happy and the the economy is rebounding from the financial crisis. But there is a sense of complacency amongst the people – a resigned air of the glory days being in the past, similar to Europe. Although much of the mainland aspires to Hong Kong’s wealth, this city is stagnating. Full integration with China will be in 2030, but already the government is looking past this metropolis. The communists will pick the fruits of Hong Kong but will not invest, because this is not the future of the Middle Kingdom.
Shanghai (Wood/ Thunder) is the future and excitement of China. Similar in feel to New York, the World Expo this summer, has been a reason for the government to invest and clean up the city. Construction is rampant and overwhelming. One plan takes the extensive highway next to the river (located alongside the Bund) and moves it underground. The leadership started this revision 3 years ago, and the structure will finalize by end March. In contrast, Boston took 20 years to do complete a similar project along its riverbank. The revolution is that people are so preoccupied making money they have ignored politics. The apparent division between capitalism driving the people and communism managing the State can be seen across China but is most striking here.
We concluded that “Red” China has transformed into “Ferrari Red” China. Manufacturing is replacing agriculture. Materialism is the new manifesto. Ermenegildo Zegna mega-stores are the temples. Currency is the new comrade. As with any makeover, this change comes at a cost. The Culture Revolution stripped much of the country of its deep heritage, and the hyper-economic affluence has been the only way to fill the vacuum of sophistication.
The pursuit of the all-powerful RMB makes the country feel soul-less. This mentality might have been on what our pre-conceived notions of Mordor were based. Conspicuous consumption is the norm these days - mixing expensive Bordeaux wines with coke, ordering excessive food just to throw it away, destroying traditional villages to create luxury apartments; flooding the borders into Hong Kong to go shopping.
But the epiphany was that the soul resides with its people many of whom live outside these urban centers. The heritage has not been forgotten just suppressed under money and commercialism. This is evident in the resurgence of a foodie culture – shanghainese cuisine mixing black poppy and hairy crab, peking duck with little fat and crisp skin, or mutton soup with glass noodles in Xi’an. Along with the Chinese characters which Mao tried to remove, these traditions have survived repression. If the government were to place emphasis on art, theater, music, and literature, the culture would again flourish.
In the next few decades the country and the people will need to question which path to take: continue on the rocket trajectory of consumerism or pause to re-establish historic customs and rituals. The more the government transfers people into the urban centers and encourages materialism, the more it walks down the first path. It may be time for China to re-balance again.
March 14, 2010
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Some thoughts on… Oscars 2010
In an attempt to gain viewers, the Academy this year is selecting a greater diversity of movies and nominating 10 films in the Best Picture category. The increased number means it’s harder to keep up and watch all the candidates. Thus, to be perfectly candid, I have not yet seen the following movies – An Education, A Serious Man, and Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire. Nonetheless, that won’t stop me from describing my personal favorites
The Best Picture category is an all out fight between Avatar – perhaps the greatest movie ever made – and The Hurt Locker, the best film of the year. So what is my distinction between a movie and a film? Avatar is a great movie for its combination of effects, camera angles and 3D realism. It is a transformation in movie-making, similar to the revolutions of silent to sound and monochrome to color. The themes though are quite simple – good vs. evil; boy meets, loses and gets back girl (albeit 9-foot tall, feline blue girl). The story is familiar, but the packaging is ground-breaking.
Katheryn Bigelow’s feature, The Hurt Locker, available on DVD, also shows us a world we barely know – following a bomb-defusing team in Baghdad. But, this is not re-telling a classic tale. Instead it muses on darker themes –the desire for annihilation in a world where taking risks is what keeps you alive; the imbalance between sanity and gifted-talent. Similar to Avatar, this movie has bombastic effects, but what makes it different is the taut storyline and character development. Although Avatar will get Best Picture, Katheryn Bigelow should win Best Director.
The other Best Picture candidates like District 9 would have had a shot in a less strong year. Up also nominated in this category should float away with the Best Animated Feature category.
Best Actor will go to Jeff Bridges, but he is robbing it from Colin Firth whose portrayal of a torn soul due to his lover’s death in A Single Man is heart-breaking.
Best Actress will go to Sandra Bullock. Although the movie Blind Side pulls at all the right heart strings, it is not a great film or movie and shouldn’t be a Best Picture candidate. Yet, Bullock’s turn as the bull-headed, suburban mother that adopts and raises a pro-football athelete, is sincere and worthy. Meryl Streep has enough nominations and wins; she doesn’t need this one.
Christopher Waltz’s killer performance in Inglorious Basterds should get Best Supporting Actor. His fey Nazi Colonel who speaks four languages fluently and is constantly outwitting his prey is pure Oscar fun. The vengeance story of the movie itself is a little more disquieting. Matt Damon’s Afrikaaner rugby player doing the right thing in Invictus would have won for its feel-good storyline in any other year.
Finally, Mo’Nique’s performance in Precious has won every award so far, and is likely to continue its streak. Although, I personally enjoyed Vera Farmiga’s performance as foil and friend to George Clooney in Up In The Air. I hope to see this pairing soon – they may become the modern-day Cary Grant / Katherine Hepburn.
Have fun and don’t forget to watch on Sunday, March 7.
February 27, 2010
The Best Picture category is an all out fight between Avatar – perhaps the greatest movie ever made – and The Hurt Locker, the best film of the year. So what is my distinction between a movie and a film? Avatar is a great movie for its combination of effects, camera angles and 3D realism. It is a transformation in movie-making, similar to the revolutions of silent to sound and monochrome to color. The themes though are quite simple – good vs. evil; boy meets, loses and gets back girl (albeit 9-foot tall, feline blue girl). The story is familiar, but the packaging is ground-breaking.
Katheryn Bigelow’s feature, The Hurt Locker, available on DVD, also shows us a world we barely know – following a bomb-defusing team in Baghdad. But, this is not re-telling a classic tale. Instead it muses on darker themes –the desire for annihilation in a world where taking risks is what keeps you alive; the imbalance between sanity and gifted-talent. Similar to Avatar, this movie has bombastic effects, but what makes it different is the taut storyline and character development. Although Avatar will get Best Picture, Katheryn Bigelow should win Best Director.
The other Best Picture candidates like District 9 would have had a shot in a less strong year. Up also nominated in this category should float away with the Best Animated Feature category.
Best Actor will go to Jeff Bridges, but he is robbing it from Colin Firth whose portrayal of a torn soul due to his lover’s death in A Single Man is heart-breaking.
Best Actress will go to Sandra Bullock. Although the movie Blind Side pulls at all the right heart strings, it is not a great film or movie and shouldn’t be a Best Picture candidate. Yet, Bullock’s turn as the bull-headed, suburban mother that adopts and raises a pro-football athelete, is sincere and worthy. Meryl Streep has enough nominations and wins; she doesn’t need this one.
Christopher Waltz’s killer performance in Inglorious Basterds should get Best Supporting Actor. His fey Nazi Colonel who speaks four languages fluently and is constantly outwitting his prey is pure Oscar fun. The vengeance story of the movie itself is a little more disquieting. Matt Damon’s Afrikaaner rugby player doing the right thing in Invictus would have won for its feel-good storyline in any other year.
Finally, Mo’Nique’s performance in Precious has won every award so far, and is likely to continue its streak. Although, I personally enjoyed Vera Farmiga’s performance as foil and friend to George Clooney in Up In The Air. I hope to see this pairing soon – they may become the modern-day Cary Grant / Katherine Hepburn.
Have fun and don’t forget to watch on Sunday, March 7.
February 27, 2010
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Some thoughts on… Appeasing Anger
Heading to the subway for work two weeks ago, I was stopped by the driver of a white van on the street. He leaned over and asked “Hey buddy, this is a strange question, but do you want to buy a 5.1 system?” I didn’t need a stereo but a couple of friends did. He opened up the back to show 8 new boxes and a shiny catalogue demonstrating the retail price was around $3000. This had to be a scam.
Thrilled by the prospect of a good deal and simultaneously nervous of being arrested by the police for literally buying stuff that was falling off the back of a truck, we came to a negotiated price of $220. I brought it back to the apartment and started to Google which eventually voiced my gnawing doubts – this was a big hoax. The brand – Paramax – was being sold out of white vans in the UK and US. The speakers were barely worth what I had paid. Luckily, I hadn’t been completely ripped off, but I was ashamed and pissed.
On February 4, Scott Brown was sworn in as the Republican Senator of Massachusetts inheriting the seat left by Ted Kennedy, disrupting the fragile Congressional vote on Health Care reform, and representing the anger of the broader Tea-Party Movement. Formed early in 2009, these citizens oppose the large spend associated with the stimulus package and the actions of President Obama over the past year. They are livid that the national debt is increasing, and that they may have to pay future taxes.
The original Boston Tea-Party staged before the American Revolution, protested actual levies on goods imported and exported from the US. Confusingly, the current movement is focused on potential tax increases that may occur, although no taxes on the middle-class are planned in Obama’s ten-year budget.
So, why are the Independent voters in Massachusetts, the Tea-Party Republicans and I so mad at our respective transactions? Didn’t we just get what we deserved?
The musical, Fela! which transferred from off-Broadway to the Eugene O’Neill, is an homage to afro-beat music pioneered by Fela Kuti in the 1970’s. Kuti, a Nigerian composer and political activist, wrote scathing critiques of the corrupt government and its links to multi-national oil companies. The music is a syncopated, mash-up of West African rhythms, jazz and story-telling in Pidgin English. The music of the show is enveloping and electrifying; tantalizing the audience with its marijuana-laced power to stand, sway, clap and interact regardless of the age, income, and racial composition of the Broadway audience
The haphazard story line doesn’t follow a traditional musical plot, and the rambling narrative paints an impressionistic canvass rather than fine-detail, but the music is sufficiently enthralling to cover these faults. Although Kuti’s original critiques of the government were crushed through violent suppression by the military, he continued to express his discontent in the streets of Lagos and across West Africa through his music well into the 1990’s. He attempted several runs for the President’s office in the 1980’s, but the rebellious and withdrawn approach of his protest – declaring an independent state within Nigeria, eventually marrying more than 27 women, and actively using illicit narcotics – separated him from more influential parties. In the end, his remonstrations were colorful spectacle, but could not effectuate change since they did not present a clear and viable alternative to the prevailing system.
David Mamet’s new drama, Race, is a court-room exhibition with fast-talking lawyers, an ingénue assistant, and a morally-questionable defendant. It’s the right mixture of ingredients, but the cake doesn’t rise. David Alan Grier and James Spader portray Partners in a law firm who are determining whether to take on the case of a white man that is accused of raping a black woman. Mamet’s dialogue is clever, but is thrown-away by the verbal acuity of the performers who seem intent to race through the show as quickly as possible. Just as I had a handle on the state of play, act 2 was completing.
Blame is a major theme of the performance – is the defendant culpable for the turn of events or is race biasing our view of innocence? The lawyers seek to determine guilt using the tools they have to address a potential judge and jury - hatred, fear and envy. Their own prejudices are mired in these emotions. Before approaching a court, they play out potential arguments in the safety of their office, leading them down philosophically - wayward streets and back alleys. Eventually, we realize that in the pursuit to establish innocence, they become guilty, since they forget to acknowledge their role in creating the lurid affair.
Similar to the Tea-Party independents, all of us can get mad at our current situation – with work, with our families, with the economy – but when expressing anger we should take on two responsibilities. First is to recognize our own culpability in creating and fostering the situation. How did we allow an administration in eight years to take us from a Fiscal surplus to deficit by running two wars without paying for them?
The second responsibility to displaying anger is being able to generate a potential alternative for the situation. If Republicans really disagree with the current situation, they should complain, and then generate ideas for resolution. We can’t just sit back and criticize without taking the responsibility to govern. Otherwise, we become cynics cursing at the skies and others.
It’s easy for me to get angry at the people selling me a bad stereo – “they swindled me”, “the cops should stop these people”, “the city should crack down”. In the end, though I was the one buying a system from the back of a truck. I got what I deserved. Maybe in the future, I’ll think twice about getting such a good deal.
February 7, 2010
Thrilled by the prospect of a good deal and simultaneously nervous of being arrested by the police for literally buying stuff that was falling off the back of a truck, we came to a negotiated price of $220. I brought it back to the apartment and started to Google which eventually voiced my gnawing doubts – this was a big hoax. The brand – Paramax – was being sold out of white vans in the UK and US. The speakers were barely worth what I had paid. Luckily, I hadn’t been completely ripped off, but I was ashamed and pissed.
On February 4, Scott Brown was sworn in as the Republican Senator of Massachusetts inheriting the seat left by Ted Kennedy, disrupting the fragile Congressional vote on Health Care reform, and representing the anger of the broader Tea-Party Movement. Formed early in 2009, these citizens oppose the large spend associated with the stimulus package and the actions of President Obama over the past year. They are livid that the national debt is increasing, and that they may have to pay future taxes.
The original Boston Tea-Party staged before the American Revolution, protested actual levies on goods imported and exported from the US. Confusingly, the current movement is focused on potential tax increases that may occur, although no taxes on the middle-class are planned in Obama’s ten-year budget.
So, why are the Independent voters in Massachusetts, the Tea-Party Republicans and I so mad at our respective transactions? Didn’t we just get what we deserved?
The musical, Fela! which transferred from off-Broadway to the Eugene O’Neill, is an homage to afro-beat music pioneered by Fela Kuti in the 1970’s. Kuti, a Nigerian composer and political activist, wrote scathing critiques of the corrupt government and its links to multi-national oil companies. The music is a syncopated, mash-up of West African rhythms, jazz and story-telling in Pidgin English. The music of the show is enveloping and electrifying; tantalizing the audience with its marijuana-laced power to stand, sway, clap and interact regardless of the age, income, and racial composition of the Broadway audience
The haphazard story line doesn’t follow a traditional musical plot, and the rambling narrative paints an impressionistic canvass rather than fine-detail, but the music is sufficiently enthralling to cover these faults. Although Kuti’s original critiques of the government were crushed through violent suppression by the military, he continued to express his discontent in the streets of Lagos and across West Africa through his music well into the 1990’s. He attempted several runs for the President’s office in the 1980’s, but the rebellious and withdrawn approach of his protest – declaring an independent state within Nigeria, eventually marrying more than 27 women, and actively using illicit narcotics – separated him from more influential parties. In the end, his remonstrations were colorful spectacle, but could not effectuate change since they did not present a clear and viable alternative to the prevailing system.
David Mamet’s new drama, Race, is a court-room exhibition with fast-talking lawyers, an ingénue assistant, and a morally-questionable defendant. It’s the right mixture of ingredients, but the cake doesn’t rise. David Alan Grier and James Spader portray Partners in a law firm who are determining whether to take on the case of a white man that is accused of raping a black woman. Mamet’s dialogue is clever, but is thrown-away by the verbal acuity of the performers who seem intent to race through the show as quickly as possible. Just as I had a handle on the state of play, act 2 was completing.
Blame is a major theme of the performance – is the defendant culpable for the turn of events or is race biasing our view of innocence? The lawyers seek to determine guilt using the tools they have to address a potential judge and jury - hatred, fear and envy. Their own prejudices are mired in these emotions. Before approaching a court, they play out potential arguments in the safety of their office, leading them down philosophically - wayward streets and back alleys. Eventually, we realize that in the pursuit to establish innocence, they become guilty, since they forget to acknowledge their role in creating the lurid affair.
Similar to the Tea-Party independents, all of us can get mad at our current situation – with work, with our families, with the economy – but when expressing anger we should take on two responsibilities. First is to recognize our own culpability in creating and fostering the situation. How did we allow an administration in eight years to take us from a Fiscal surplus to deficit by running two wars without paying for them?
The second responsibility to displaying anger is being able to generate a potential alternative for the situation. If Republicans really disagree with the current situation, they should complain, and then generate ideas for resolution. We can’t just sit back and criticize without taking the responsibility to govern. Otherwise, we become cynics cursing at the skies and others.
It’s easy for me to get angry at the people selling me a bad stereo – “they swindled me”, “the cops should stop these people”, “the city should crack down”. In the end, though I was the one buying a system from the back of a truck. I got what I deserved. Maybe in the future, I’ll think twice about getting such a good deal.
February 7, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)