Joanne Engelhardt

A Late Quartet

Directed by Yaron Zilberman

 

 

This is the story of a classical string quartet in crisis due to the illness and departure of its cellist and senior member, Peter Mitchell (Christopher Walken).  It is a powerful, moving story, but I doubt that it will have a wide audience.  The audience for this film is devotees of classical music, students in music conservatories, and fusty old conservatives with very conventional ideas about music, sex, and relationships.

It is a film for mature audiences.  When I say “mature audience” I don’t mean that it has sexual content and is therefore not suitable for young people.  On the contrary, I think sexual content is especially appropriate for young people because they are most curious and preoccupied with sexual feelings and issues, and should therefore be taking every opportunity to learn about it in any way they can.  “Mature audience,” for me, means an audience that has lived long enough to grasp the complexities and layers of personal relationships that have continued over a long period of time.  “Mature” means having perspective, being able to see the context in which passions and longings are played out, understanding the limitations and trade-offs, and ambivalences that are inevitable in human relations.  Being able to see that things change and evolve, and what is true today, may not be true tomorrow, and what was true yesterday may no longer be true today however much we might wish it to be.  It means being able to face up to what we are as people defined by what we have done or not done, rather than by what we have wished or strived for.  Young people can grasp these things intellectually, but they don’t know, and can’t know, what it feels like and looks like to a much older person.  That is just the nature of being younger or older.  That is the meaning of “maturity.”   So when I say that this film is for a mature audience, this is what I am talking about.  The issues are mature and the themes are mature.  I don’t mean to say that young people should not see it.  They absolutely should, because it will help them understand older people.  But the issues of the film are not their issues, with the exception of the sexual affairs between the younger girls and the older men, which the film treats very badly, trivializing them, and dismissing them in a rather callous, nonsensical fashion.

I like the subject matter, and the film is very well made, but I have a number of problems with the script.  The female characters are not well drawn, and I think, given short shrift.  The most promising character in the whole film, Alexandra (Imogen Poots), is turned into a confused, spineless, simpering jellyfish.  Juliette, (Catherine Keener) the violist and wife of the second violinist, Robert (Philip Seymour Hoffman), and the mother of Alexandra, is not fleshed out at all.  She becomes a very conventional and inadequate housewife and mother whose only asset seems to be her role as violist in the quartet.  She fails as a wife and she fails as a mother, and is rather problematic throughout the saga.  She seems to want to keep everything the way it has been, but she is not very effective in anything she attempts and we do not see who she is in any depth.

Although sex plays a major role in the story line, the film upholds very conventional middle class attitudes toward sex and relationships, which have nothing to offer but disappointment, defeat, and failure, and you’re supposed to just live with that.  Robert, the second violinist, whose dissatisfaction with his role in the quartet and his marriage is one of the dynamic forces in the film, ends up being defeated in all his attempts to shake things up and alter his position vis-a-vis the others in the group.  He starts an affair with a young flamenco dancer (Liraz Charhi) that gets nipped in the bud by his wife after their first night together, and the very appealing girl is rudely dismissed.  He should have fought harder for her, but he was a total wimp and caved in to his wife with hardly a protest.  The incident did prompt them to hash out some of the issues in their marriage, which are of long standing, as such things usually are, but they don’t really get anywhere.  Juliette takes the typical attitude of the American middle class woman and is prepared to trash the whole marriage because her husband fucked a young dancer one time.  It’s so idiotic.  I’ve seen people blow up twenty year marriages, sell houses, move long distances, fight bitterly over kids and money, all on account of a little bit of outside fucking.  Americans are crazy.  So while the film panders to conventional attitudes, it fails to offer anything constructive or insightful.  It doesn’t raise any questions.  It just proffers pat answers that it takes for granted.

Similarly with the affair between Daniel (Mark Ivanir), the first violinist, and Alexandra, the daughter of Robert and Juliette.  Daniel and Alexandra have probably known each other since she was born.  The first question you have to ask yourself is why this affair even happened?  As the film presents it — which I don’t quite believe — Robert recommends Alexandra to Daniel for violin lessons.  Daniel treats her like a child and belittles her.  He tells her she is not ready to tackle Beethoven’s Opus 131.  I suspect that is something music students often hear from their teachers, that certain pieces are beyond their understanding and they should wait until they are older or more mature before they tackle them.  What a lot of quatch!  So what if you make mistakes?  So what if you don’t understand it fully?  Go ahead and plunge into it, if you feel a strong urge beckoning you!  Defy them!  I mean it!  Of course you’ll play it better when you’re fifty.  You better hope you will.  But you have to start where you are, when you feel the desire and enthusiasm to tackle the challenging new project.  If you wait for a bunch of old people to bless you and tell you you’re ready, you’ll never do anything.  She should have ripped the music book in half and stormed out.  Instead she seduces him.  She is the aggressor and the initiator of the affair.  She seemed to be seeking his approval, and she wasn’t getting it through her violin playing, so she had another way of getting it that she knew would work for sure.  OK, so once you get him, what do you do with him?  Here the film reaches its low point of nonsense.  The affair is quickly discovered by the others in the group, in particular, by her parents, and they go into apoplexy.  Why?  Why is it so objectionable to them?  The film treats their disapproval as something self evident and unproblematic.  But the affair is quite natural and almost predictable.  Robert, in the most dramatic moment of the film –, and very much out of character for a string quartet — punches Daniel in the face and knocks him off his chair during rehearsal — a punch that will probably be applauded by every second violinist around the world.  But it is total nonsense.   Robert becomes a ridiculous figure, flailing about violently, out of control, completely helpless and totally ineffective.   Alexandra stands up very admirably to her mother, but then turns around and inexplicably dismisses Daniel and ends the affair that she just started, although Daniel is firm in his resolve to continue with it in the face of all the opposition — the only one in the film with any real character.  But this makes Alexandra look like a weak, confused, immature idiot.  This is why I think this film treats the women with pronounced hostility.  All of the sexual affairs — which are initiated by the young women — are quickly and definitively crushed, but for no good reason.  The film is simply hostile to sexual relationships that don’t fit into the mold of conventional middle class marriage.  This gives the film an atmosphere of mundane conservatism.  It is very ordinary.  Nothing like Beethoven.

I should probably say something about the Beethoven Quartet Opus 131 in C# minor that plays a thematic role in the film.   The choice of this particular quartet as a centerweight to this film is very appropriate because of the broad emotional range found throughout the quartet from anguish, contention, and turmoil, to relaxed, airy, lighthearted fun, as well as some enigmatic aspects that are difficult to penetrate.  This quartet is rather unusual.  It is in seven movements instead of the usual four, and Beethoven wanted them played without the usual pauses between the movements.  So it makes for a rather long, continuous piece that is demanding for both performers and audience.  Beethoven expected people to have long attention spans.  He should have lived in America for a while.  The piece is somber and anguished.  The first movement is painful.  It is a fugue that stabs at your heart.  The second and fifth movements are much more upbeat, especially the fifth movement, which is essentially a scherzo.   It is somewhat repetitious, but vigorous and lively.  The second movement is bright and almost lilting.  The third and sixth movements are very short and seem to serve as introductions to the longer, more substantial movements that follow.  The sixth movement is a somber, mournful dirge that segues into the vigorous final movement.  The fourth movement is quite long, nearly fifteen minutes.  I found it difficult to relate to.  I couldn’t seem to get a fix on it, emotionally.  There seems to be a longing that is not well defined.  The anguish is there, but it is subdued, almost below the surface, threatening to break through in points but never quite taking over.  Some of the good cheer fleetingly appears and then vanishes just as suddenly.  I don’t get it, and I think it is the heart of the quartet.  It seems to be the center of gravity of the whole piece.  The last movement is rough, contentious, and full of struggle and drama.  This quartet is a mature piece that challenges both the listener and the performer.  It is very fitting to the issues besetting this group of people.

The film has a lot to say about music and performance that will be of keen interest to musicians.  I found it to be very touching and moving.  It could have been a great movie if it had not taken such a conventional, mediocre attitude toward the story line.  At the end of the film the cellist is replaced by a new member, who has worked with the group before, and is judged to be a good fit that will maintain the established character of the group.  So everything stays the way it was.  The quartet continues on playing the same music with the same character and style.  The sexual affairs with the young girls are ended.  The marriage seems to be limping along as it had before.  Everything ends up pretty close to the way it was at the beginning.  Only the cellist is replaced.  And that is supposed to be a happy, harmonious ending.  What a crock!  It makes a mockery of the whole film.  What was all the contention and struggle about if we end up with essentially the same quartet, playing in the same style, in the same personal relationships?  Does the mere presence of a stable cellist subdue all the conflict and dissatisfaction that was afflicting this group from long before this movie started?  This film should be titled “The Triumph of Conservatism and Conventionality in Classical Music and in Life.”

This quartet should have broken up like the Beatles.  I thought about that as I was watching it.  The married couple should have separated or divorced.  The daughter should have moved in with the first violinist.  The second violinist should have left, founded his own quartet and been very successful, and the flamenco dancer should have gotten pregnant with the second violinist’s child.  Now that would have been a good movie.

The weekend beginning Friday, November 16 through Sunday the 18^th , the Fall Fringe of Marin presents its final weekend of two programs of new, original one act plays under the auspices of the Dominican University Players  in Meadowlands Hall on its San Rafael campus.

Program One plays on Saturday, November 17.   It opens with Shirley King’s Hollywood Confidential, directed by Robin Schild. It is a stylized spy spoof, complete with dark glasses and trench coats.   Set to a James Bond soundtrack, Gloria (Gigi Benson), and Duckman (Monty Paulson) enter, guns drawn.  The timing, especially in the opening choreography is spot on. Things get rocky when Duckman, believing he is a superhero out to save the day, reveals his outfit beneath his coat, dons headgear and flippers.  His partner is not amused.

Mysterious Ways , a solo performance, follows.  It was written by George Dykstra, who also plays a bereaved widower who cannot let his wife go.  He celebrates their anniversary the same way every year.  He speaks to her as though she’s in the other room, and goes into long expository remembrances of things past until, tragically, he realizes, again, she’s gone forever.  A phone call from his grown daughter brings him back to reality.  Dykstra gives a well-shaded, deep, but clichéd, insight into this common life passage.

A brief scene change and we are surprised to see a man locked in a bathroom, sitting on a toilet.  He watches through the glass pane and listens to his deluded wife in the next room rehearsing her TV meteorologist audition routine.  This is Martin A. David’s self-directed absurdist comedy, Minerva and Melrose.  Throughout the play,  Minerva (Lauren Arrow),  an adroit malapropist, spouts them constantly (“Pinochle” for “pinnicle”, etc.)  as she ponders her career options, deciding on this one then that, each time believing she will be a instant star.  Melrose , played by Jon Zax, exuding a kindof Harpo Marx vibe, encourages her, but utters snide comic asides as he fiddles with toilet paper.   She has an accident; Melrose unlocks himself from the bathroom, finally freeing himself from his indulgent, demanding wife.  Arrow, a beautiful, big woman who moves with grace, has been seen in several Fringe plays over the years.

Don Samson’s The Game, follows.  Directed by Carol Eggers, it features a young married couple.  Tom, played by Fringe favorite Rick Roitinger, with impeccable timing, and Marion (a believable Emily Soleil) have been invited by friends to join them at a Swingers party.   Tom seems willing to try it, do something different, but Emily hesitates.  They banter, argue, and speculate about it and its eventual outcome.    Emily turns the tables on him which changes Tom’s mind.

How Salt & Pepper Got Put into Shaker is a delightful, costumed, animated bit from playwright Annette Lust’s Pantry Tales series. Directed and choreographed by Pamela Rand the play is an informative piece, narrated by the French Cook (Charles Grant in a perfect French accent).   Originally, salt and pepper were served in small bowls with silver spoons.  But Salt (Terri Barker), in white, and Pepper (Cynthia Sims ), in black, argue and fight about which of them is the most important to enhance foods and please diners, scattering their grains all over the place, making a mess.  This upsets Cook, who decides, in order to avoid this, they must be put into separate shakers.  A nice touch was the court-jester-like jingly hats.

Writer and director, Michael Ferguson’s thoughtful, though didactic at times, Sharp Edges tells the story of a budding relationship between a subdued Melanie (Jennifer Cedar-Kraft ) and an insistent Daniel (David Louis Klein).  Though they seemed to have a lot in common, they’ve parted ways.  When they run into each other during an intermission at a symphony concert, they discuss their differences.   Daniel is honest about his sexual needs and how he sees women, while Melanie, who’s had a troubled life and suffered rape, wants understanding and companionship.

Program One ends with the fast-paced, funny, Sunday Sundays written and skillfully directed by Peter Hsieh, about a group of friends who play croquet together every Sunday.   But, this time, someone forgot to bring the balls.  The piece opens with the four Archie (Jason Hurtado), Nate (Michael Lee Lund), Wade (Everado Leon), and Krista (Elizabeth Curtis), frozen in various croquet playing positions, mallets raised at odd angles.  Angry over the missing balls, they begin to fight, advancing downstage swinging mallets, arguing and blaming, in Shakespearean English.  The scene is rewound, back to frozen statues, starting over.  This happens several times, each time the players advance and speak various dialects: Southern, then hyper-tragic drama.  The funniest were the robot and zombie croquet player zombies.  Excellent choreography.

Some Mime Troupe and Clown Conservatory regulars opened Program Two with the slap-stick, clown piece, Get a Date Show, written by Stacy Lapin & Pamela Rand, with the collaboration of Joan Mankin, and directed by Clown Conservatory founder Paoli Lacy.  Based on popular TV date shows of the ‘70s,- except that this one appears intended for single seniors-  it features an Emcee, Johnny J. Johnson (an acrobatic Ross Travis); contestants, Joan “The Champ” Longjump (Joan Mankin), Gladys Ruffelshire (Pamela Rand); and the lucky date Arthur  (Pickle Family Circus alum Randy Craig).  White-haired Arthur is wheelchair-bound, assisted by his comely attendant, Kay (Tristan Cunningham).  Background music is provided by the Ukulele Musician, Myron Seth Isaacs.  Contestant questions trended towards elder-sex, and contestants judged by physical prowess.  Who won a date with Arthur?  The play was enhanced with a slide show by Rachel Cohen.

Second on the program is On With the Wind in which seniors at a elder facility gather to watch a video of “Gone With the Wind” (the “G” on the cover was missing, hence the reference to “On-“).  It was written and directed by Carol Sheldon, with a lively cast: Loreen (Kathy Holly), Twyla (Roberta Maloy), Lawrence (Michael Collins), Beverly (Donna Andrews); and Floramae (Floralynn Isaacson), dressed as a character in the film.  As they watch, they  talk about the film, its characters, plot, and quote from it; they discuss each others’ outfits, past relationships, embarrassing issues of growing older, and elder sex.  However it never gets maudlin and is quite funny.   Twlya’s droll remarks keeps the repartee from getting smarmy and piteous.

Arrangements  by Clare J. Baker, directed by Gina Pandiani is a comedy about making after-death arrangements.  It takes place in the funeral director Mr. Ashley’s office (reliable Charles Grant).  He can’t decide if his saucy, exotic client,  Reddi Witherspoon, played by  spunky Terri Barker, is flirting with him or what.  She appears to be rolling in dough and wants to be cremated.  There are many allusions to ashes- including  his name- and puns throughout.

One Time at the Zoo, a lively romp, written & directed by William O. Chessman III with choreography by Susan Amacker, is the perfect apré-intermission play.  The Beasleys- Pamela (Susan Amacker), and Gerald ( Michael A. O’Brien),  and daughter Victoria (wonderful 7^th grade actor Melissa Schepers)- visit the zoo.   Victoria teases and taunts the chimp (Ken Sollazzo, thankfully not in a gorilla suit).   Mom and Dad try to give her a lesson in evolution; how close a relation chimps are to humans.  She isn’t listening.  When Dad gets too close to the cage, the chimp goes to work on him and somehow they change places.   Amacker’s choreography works to both Sollazzo’s and O’Brien’s advantage.  To see Dad’s melt-down from a staid, composed man is priceless.

G. Randy Kasten wrote and directed Supplementing, a drama dealing with infidelity.   Husband and wife actors Diane and David Rodrigues play married couple Mindy and Pete.  When Mindy keeps arriving home from work later and later each night, Pete has his suspicions.  Mindy is concerned with her looks, and aging, afraid she’s losing her attractiveness.  The short play is seen in several separate scenes.  In each, the actors wear different clothes to depict the passage of time.  And Pete is always on the couch drinking.   It is difficult to portray a drunk. Even tippler Richard Burton said he had to get sober before he could play one.  In the final scene, Pete delivers a believable drunken monologue to himself in the mirror.

Shaw, written and directed by Ollie Mae Trost Welch, has Shaw (Kevin Copps as G.B Shaw) walking haltingly with a cane, talking to himself about  God.  This is a well-known Shavian trope.  Shaw was an admitted and proud atheist.  However, after his death at 93, people specfulated about what he would say if he met God, and plays have been written about it.  In this one,  Shaw and God (played by Jerrund Bojeste) debate His existence and, where, exactly is Shaw now? Heaven?  Hell? Purgatory? Shaw asks God to prove his existence by making him (Shaw), the age he felt happiest.  It’s difficult for anyone to emulate G.B. Shaw, but Copps pulls it off, even with a slight Irish accent.  How does one play God? He could be anything, or anyone, even a she.  With his matter-of-fact delivery, Bojeste in his pony-tail, beard, embroidered vest, slacks, and loafers?  Sure he could be God.  Why not?

This thought-provoking play is followed by the hilarious mystery farce, The Trouble at Table 23, written by Charley Lerrigo and directed by Amy Crumpacker.   Bill (Manik Bahl) wants milk for his coffee.  He’s staying in a hotel, visits the dining room and asks the receptionist, known only as “Actor” played dead-pan by Jean Davis, who gives him trouble, but no milk; then a waitress, again played by Actor, this time in an ill-fitting wig, also gives him a hard time, but no milk.  She disappears.  A body turns up.   It’s discovered he’s a thief (John Ferreira).  Then, of course, a trench-coated detective, again played by Actor, who pins the murder on Bill.  Man!  All the dude wanted was milk for his coffee!  The audience laughed throughout at the absurdity of it all.  Poor Bill.

She Has a Plan, by George Freek, directed by Jim Colgan, ends Program Two.  A married couple played by Ayelette Robinson as Martina Hoople, and George Doerr as Henry Hoople, visit a marriage counselor, Ms. Pennyworth (Cynthia Sims).   Martina wants Henry, who really appears to be a weak, ineffectual man- much credit to Doerr’s acting- to be more manly, stand up for himself, and not be such a wimp.   Marina and Pennyworth have devised a plan, unknown to Henry, which involves Bert, Martina’s big, beefy ex-,  perfectly rendered by Simon Patton.

Visit www.Fringofmarin for directions and information.

 

 

 

BLOODY BLOODY ANDREW JACKSON

 

Reviewed by Jeffrey R Smith of the San Francisco Bay Area Theatre Critics Circle

 

The all new San Francisco Playhouse, at 450 Post, is presently performing BLOODY BLOODY ANDREW JACKSON by Alex Timbers and Michael Friedman.

 

Victims of their own success, creative genii Bill English and Susi Damilano were crowded out of their former digs at the Jean Shelton complex; now they seat audiences commensurate with the qualitative edge they enjoy within the San Francisco environs; it is worth noting that their bar has quintupled in length.

 

Their current performance piece is a unique hybrid of that occupies the very intersection of rock musical, dark comedy, docudrama and political satire.

 

But don’t be fooled; the music and the comedy are a set up; a conspiracy to lure the audience into a place of vulnerability, susceptibility and receptivity to dark historical truths of American Expansion.

 

The aegis of our American exceptionalism is temporarily lowered and we are led to see ourselves in the boarder, grittier, historical context.

 

As the title suggests, Andrew Jackson was bloody; his carnage was equal parts vengeance, political ambition, military stratagem, hatred and racism.

 

Jackson cleared six states of all pockets of resistance to unbridled American expansion; without Congressional approval he eradicated the Spanish and British influence in the American Southeast.

 

His imperialistic successes inspired America’s patriotic myth of “manifest destiny;” a myth that was brought to completion by the whole sale annexations of James Polk.

 

Jackson eliminated his enemies both in the territories and Washington D.C. and like most unchallenged rulers he stepped on to that slippery slope of sic semper tyrannis.

 

His excesses lead to the infamous Trail of Tears; a forced march impossible to morally differentiate from the Bataan Death March which was of equal scale.

 

Ashkon Davaran is the star and focus of this show; he commands the stage with high energy, bravado and mesmerizing charisma as he portrays a rustic, accidental leader’s accent to the White House.

 

The music is reminiscent of Green Day, specifically AMERICAN IDIOT, only better under the capable Musical Direction of Jonathon Fadner.

 

Wait until you see the cello player’s finale: simply amazing.

 

A set design, by Award Winning Set Designer—indeed architect—Nina Ball, presages the future of the orphaned pioneer lad in Tennessee.

 

Angel Burgess is absolutely stunning as she plays Jackson’s wife Rachel: a woman with a heart too big and too filled with longing, loneliness and sorrow not to break.

 

Director Jon Tracy has bundled a compelling script, a talented cast and rocking musical score to create what is easily the best happening in San Francisco.

 

It is over-the-top and should not be missed.

 

For tickets call 415-677-9591 or surf on over to sfplayhouse.org.

 

Hurry, your historical perspective might never be the same.

 

 

Lohengrin
SF Opera Performance, October 20, 2012

The concept of love put forward in Lohengrin is that of a fragile flower very dependent upon maintaining illusions. Love is equivalent to blind Faith in goodness and constancy that must be absolute and unquestioning. But the underlying anxieties of this kind of naive faith ultimately undermine it and do it in. Lohengrin echoes Christianity in its demand for simple faith and the basic concept of a man is sent from God to rescue a damsel in distress, accused of a terrible crime. He saves her, not through self sacrifice, as in the Christian model, but through militaristic combat — a Wagnerian variant on the Christian theme. Superior prowess on the battlefield saves the girl from her enemies and wins her love. The woman’s love is the hero’s reward for her rescue from desperation. But there is one condition. The woman cannot ask her rescuer who he is or where he comes from. She has to take him completely on faith and let his actions of rescue and his superior strength in battle be the sole foundation of her devotion and love. If she is to question him and demand to know more of who he is, then he will be forced to leave her and renounce her. It is love founded on the most narrow, simplistic grounds and maintained with a gun pointed at the woman’s head, so to speak. Love can only be maintained with the woman in a desperate position of neediness with the man serving as the heroic figure of strength who magnanimously saves her from perpetual impending catastrophe. Love as worship of the conquering hero. While a woman may feel grateful to be delivered from impending doom — at least for a time — she will soon feel the extreme vulnerability of this position of helpless dependence, as the opera demonstrates. She will question her own worthiness of the man’s continuing love, she will want to broaden the base of the relationship and feel more appealing to the man beyond mere helplessness and need. She will feel the fragility of the connection to him. She feels vulnerable to his tiring of her and moving on. She seeks to strengthen her position through a greater understanding of the man, who he is, and what his own needs and vulnerabilities are. The message of Lohengrin is that this is a destructive tendency, that love can only be this primitive, blind devotion stemming from a condition of imminent undoing. Love between a man and a woman essentially depends on a woman being in a perpetual state of crisis. But on the other hand, if the woman gets to know who the man is and where he comes from, then she will realize that he is not the invulnerable hero, not the idealized figure of goodness and strength that he presented himself to be, and thus her love and devotion will be annuled. The man’s insecurity and feelings of unworthiness are activated upon a deeper probing of his true self. It is a very pessimistic outlook on relations between the sexes. Love can only be born and continue within these very narrow confines of faith sustained through willful ignorance, and that fragile foundation gives rise to the anxieties and demands that sabotage and destroy it. It is an outlook on life that is essentially dark and tragic — and a little silly too.
A few quibbles with the San Francisco Opera’s performance.
This production of the opera is set in a modern context in modern costumes, although Wagner’s original conceptualization set it in 10th century Saxony. On the cover of the program is a photograph by Erich Lessing of the destruction of the Stalin monument in Budapest, Hungary, during the Hungarian Revolution of 1956. The idea according to Director Daniel Slater is that a contemporary setting would make it “more exciting and relevant for the audience.” Well, most Americans living today can probably relate to the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 about as well as they can relate to 10th century Saxony. Many of us would be surprised to discover that there was a revolution in Hungary in 1956. And where is Hungary, by the way?
There are some militaristic and nationalistic elements in the opera that resonated well with the National Socialists, but you have to keep in mind that Germany did not even exist as a unified nation at the time this opera was composed. Invasion from the East was a long standing European fear that would be readily grasped by any European audience. The fact that this was a pressing matter in the 10th century would not be peculiar to that time or have any compelling significance as a factor in setting the opera in that time and place. I think Wagner’s purpose in setting the opera long in the past, aside from these nationalistic overtones, was to give the opera a context where the kind of romantic idealizations in the personal sphere that the opera treats would have traction for the viewer free from the distractions of a contemporary political and social context. Moving it forward in time and bringing up contemporary political issues in my view disrupts the essential focus of this opera on the nature of human relationships. True, the opera takes place under the threat of impending war. But this was a condition of European life as far back as one cares to look. So in that sense it did not matter when the opera was set, this background factor of imminent war was going to remain a constant in whatever time period it occurred. Wagner set it long in the past precisely to expunge the contingencies of the immediate contemporary circumstances. Bringing the opera forward and setting it in our own time defeats that artistic purpose and makes the whole thing sort of confusing.
Director Slater sees Lohengrin as a problematic character who renounces his godlike status in order to experience human love with Elsa. This is based on musings external to the opera itself. Within the opera there is nothing problematic about Lohengrin. He was sent on a mission by the Grail. He fulfilled the mission, he accepted Elsa as his prize, he accepted the leadership position as a warrior, he laid out his conditions, and he stuck to them steadfastly and departed without any apparent signs of misgiving. Slater says he is seeking redemption through Elsa’s love and is willing to sacrifice his immortality to achieve it. There is nothing in the opera to substantiate this view. Within the opera, Lohengrin is a knight in shining armor coming to the rescue of a damsel in distress and then to lead an army into battle. Slater puts him instead in a leather trench coat, which tends to deemphasize his heroic qualities. But counterculture figures don’t usually lead armies. I’m not sure that it works. Lohengrin is not Hamlet.
Generally the staging is rather static and unimaginative. At times it gets dull because there is not enough activity in the staging or aesthetic interest in the lighting to sustain one’s attention. The lighting in the first act is bright and harsh. The early part of the second act feels a little cramped against the front edge of the stage. In the original conception the swan was supposed to pull a boat down the river bearing Lohengrin. Slater gives that up and opts for much less impressive imagery of a static pair of wings from which Lohengrin emerges. At the end the long lost Gottfried reappears as a small boy from the transformed swan. But it doesn’t make sense that Gottfried should reappear as a small boy. He disappeared years ago as a child. His sister Elsa has grown into a mature woman. He should be contemporary with Elsa. Furthermore, he is supposed to arrive ready to lead an army into battle, to step into the role being abdicated by Lohengrin, but he can barely lift a sword. What is Slater seeking by casting Gottfried as an 8 year old boy? Some sort of cutesy sentimentality? A child’s appearance at the end of this dark, gloomy opera trying to wave a sword is a rather ridiculous juxtaposition if you ask me, and I take it to indicate that he completely misunderstands what the opera is all about. This is not a child’s opera at all and introducing a child as a final punctuation mark on this tragedy is a colossal malapropism.
What works in this opera is the music. If it wasn’t for the music, it probably wouldn’t even be staged. The orchestra, the singers, the chorus, did a superb job and made it a musical success, even if it left much to be desired as a dramatic production. Wagner’s great creativity and strength was as a composer of music more than as a dramatist or as a prophet. It is clearly evident in this dark opera and in its problematic staging in this San Francisco Opera production.

Girl Model
Directed by David Redmon and Ashley Sabin

This film is a public relations piece for organized criminal rackets operating internationally between Russia and the Far East. I couldn’t quite figure out why this film was made. It is a pack of lies and misrepresentations from beginning to end. The proof of this is in the film itself and I will point it out to you, although the film tries to cast itself as something benign or even benevolent. But it is such a thin veneer that it is almost laughable. This is quite obviously sordid and sinister. The more I think about it, the darker and more frightening it becomes. It’s very curious what was motivating these filmmakers?
It starts out in Siberia, of all places. Really. The opening scene reminded me of a factory farm where animals are kept in large warehouse-like facilities by the hundreds and thousands being raised in close quarters for slaughter. Except these are girls between the ages of about twelve and fifteen. Their bikini covered bodies are examined one after another in a seemingly endless assembly line, supposedly in search of some ideal of feminine beauty that will be successful as a model in Japan.
From the outset it is apparent that this is a scam. If these self appointed mavens of the fashion world actually knew as much as they claim about the tastes of Japanese publishers and fashion, then there would be successful models to interview to validate the success of their judgments. But there are none. The only adult woman interviewed in the film is Ashley Sabin, one of the filmmakers, who seems deeply ambivalent about the modeling business and who said that “no one hated the modeling business more than me.” Yet she is now a recruiter for the enterprise she once despised, and she doesn’t seem all too pleased with herself.
I spent the first part of the film wondering why this was taking place in Siberia? I’m not sure I’ve got it right, but Siberia is an out of the way place and far from media attention and public scrutiny. The population is mostly rural and economically challenged, let’s say, and probably unsophisticated in their knowledge of the outside world. It’s a good place to do something if you want to keep a low profile, and there is evidently a large pool of naive young girls who dream of escaping to a better life in a faraway place.
Tigran, the supposed owner of the modeling agency that recruits the Russian girls and transports them to Japan, is the paradigm of a smooth talking con man. He presents himself as something a few pegs below sainthood, giving these deprived girls from rural Siberia an opportunity to live an exciting life as a model in Japan and make a lot of money for their struggling families. But this avatar of his organization is belied on a number of counts, and once quite explicitly and threateningly, which I found very interesting, and a bold intimation of what he is really all about.
First of all, there are no successful models who can be held up as examples of what he has can accomplish for a girl. A successful agent should have successful clients as examples of his capabilities and judgment, and he doesn’t have any.
Second, the contract that the girls have to sign with his agency is actually quoted on screen, and promises them two jobs in Japan and $8000. But Madlen and Nadya, the two girls followed in the film, do not get jobs, and leave Japan at least $2000 in debt — to him. So they are lied to and swindled.
Third, the contract specifies that the terms of the contract can be changed from day to day at the will of the agency. This means that there is no contract, that they are basically working at his whim.
Fourth, once the girls are in Japan, he does not attend to them in any way. They are passed on to Japanese handlers who send them on an series of fruitless auditions that amount to nothing. If they do get work or their photos are used they are not paid for it, and he does not see to it that they are paid. There is not one named Japanese advertising agency, publication, retail business, or fashion house in the whole film that has used the models that this agency has represented. Not a single one.
Fifth, and most tellingly, he relates how some young girls can be”difficult” — Lord knows — and in order to subdue them, he takes them on an outing to the morgue, so they can see the dead bodies of other young girls like themselves. Purportedly, this is to discourage the girls from drug use. Tigran vouches for its powerful effectiveness. But if this is such an effective technique for keeping young girls off of drugs, maybe we should start doing it here. Why hasn’t anyone here ever thought of this after so long in the War on Drugs? Maybe we should start organizing field trips for young girls to visit morgues to see the bodies of other young girls who died from drug abuse? Perhaps this film does have one valuable insight to offer that can turn young girls’ lives around.
Actually, this is intimidation of the most heavy handed sort. This is to let the girls know that ‘you belong to us, now. We own you. And you’d better do as we tell you, or this is your destiny.’ It is a very stark choice, and he means it. He admits that he used to be in the military and that he has killed a lot of people. He wants you to know that he is capable and experienced at killing people. The military part of it is questionable, but that this man is a killer I have no doubt. This guy is intimidating and very dangerous.
The scam works like this. Girls from poor families in rural Russia are recruited by the Russian Mafia. Ashley works as a scout and a recruiter. She gives the whole process its veneer of benign legitimacy. The modeling tryouts and the search for the ideal of feminine beauty are a sham. What they are really looking for, and Tigran says this explicitly, are girls from disadvantaged backgrounds whose families have financial problems. He said they check the girls out very carefully in terms of their background and their family circumstances. They are looking for girls with the right kind of vulnerabilities. Once they find an appropriate candidate, they are lured to Japan or Taiwan or somewhere else in the Far East with the promise of a successful modeling career. But, of course, that does not happen. The girls are treated miserably. They barely have enough to eat. They have to call home to get money to live on. They get no jobs. If their photos are used, they are not paid for it. After a while they are sent home several thousand dollars in debt to the “modeling agency.”
The one instance where Nadya’s photo does appear in a magazine is one where her face is covered. Why is her face covered? With her face covered she can’t be identified. We don’t even know for sure if that is her. This “modeling agency” does not want anyone to see their models in a magazine. They don’t want anyone to know she was ever in Japan. They want her to remain invisible. What about all the tryouts and photo shoots? Some of the photos may indeed be used, but probably not in Japan, and she will never be paid for any of them. What is really going on here?
This is recruitment for prostitution. Prostitution is where the real money is, not modeling. The criminal gangs have no illusions. Very few girls can make much money modeling, but almost any girl can make substantial money as a prostitute, even a gray mouse like Nadya. That is what this is about, ladies and gentlemen. This is why the film you saw doesn’t make sense, and why it is hard for me to figure out why it was even made in the first place. The “modeling agency” is just an elaborate cover. The few thousand dollars spent on sending the girl to Japan and shaking her loose from her family is the mob’s initial investment, their startup cost. Once the girl is working as a prostitute, she will make that back and more in a very short time.
The first step is to get the girl deeply in debt. Once she is in debt beyond her ability to repay, and her family unable to bail her out, the Russian Mafia makes her an offer she can’t refuse. Remember that girl you saw in the morgue? We spent a lot of money to send you to Japan or Taiwan on those fruitless modeling tryouts, and we expect to get that money back. You’ve proven that you can’t make money as a model. But we’ve got a surefire way for you to make money, but it is not exactly modeling. It’s a little different, but another way of selling your body.
Ashley Sabin talks a little bit in the latter part of the film about prostitution and how some girls who fail as models end up going that route. She points out how some countries and cultures do not stigmatize prostitution and claims it is a perfectly legitimate way to earn a living. She professes not to know anything about that aspect of the modeling business, and claims she has nothing to do with it herself. This is very likely a lie, along with the lie we see her relating in the next few moments to Russian parents of prospective recruits that the girls from her modeling agency never return to Russia with debt, when we have just seen two girls from her agency return to Russia with thousands of dollars in debt. So her credibility is zero, and her capability and effectiveness at deception is documented right before our eyes. Some women are able to deal their way out of the prostitution aspect of the business by acting as recruiters of younger girls. That could be Ashley’s story, but she speaks very good English and appears to be an American. Perhaps those qualities were seen as more valuable assets that working as a prostitute. Ashley is a bit of a puzzle, but there is clearly much that she is not telling. It is evident that she has very mixed feelings, but apparently strong survival instincts, and she is doing what she has to do.
At the very end of the film in a textual postscript, we are told that Nadya went back to Japan the following year — a rather surprising turnaround given her disagreeable experience the first time — but maybe not, if you consider the scenario that I have painted. We are told that she failed again to achieve success as a model and racked up still more debt and was sent on to Taiwan and China and other places in the Far East. It did not tell us what she was doing or how she was living, but I think we can make a pretty good surmise that she is not making money as a model. If she was, then they would have pictures and publications and advertisements to show us as evidence of her success. But rest assured, she probably is making money, and more than she could ever make modeling, but she is not getting much of it. Ask Tigran where the money goes.
This film leaves me puzzling. Not about what is going on. That is very clear. But what were the filmmakers intentions in making this film? What were they trying to accomplish? They didn’t seem to be able to bring themselves to tell the real story, so they concocted something half-assed, that intimated very obliquely what was going on, and left a lot of loose ends dangling nonsensically, but they never really pursued the matter in any depth. And they promoted a viewpoint that they knew very well was a lie. They seem afraid to really follow this where it is leading, — understandable, actually — but if they don’t want to tell the story, why make the film at all? The people and organizations running this operation don’t usually like to be the subjects of documentary films. Why would a guy like Tigran appear in this film? Did he really think that people would buy his tale about his having such a good heart and doing this for the good of the girls, when the film plainly shows that that could not be true in any shape or form? Did they delude themselves into thinking that this would encourage young girls around the world to want to become models? I don’t get it. It must have something to do with the relationship between Ashley and Tigran. I think she is very much afraid of him. I can’t even speculate about it.

Shakespeare: The Biography.
By Peter Ackroyd. New York: Random House/Anchor Books. 2006 [2005]. 572 pp.

There is much that is not known about Shakespeare, a circumstance that always poses difficulties for a biographer, and one which often tempts the biographer to overreach the spare facts that are known with surmises and interpretations that become merged with known facts leaving a distorted, confused impression. Peter Ackroyd avoids this pitfall by masterfully recreating Shakespeare the person through the context of the time and circumstances in which he lived. The time and circumstances of Shakespeare’s life can be discerned with much more clarity and much more fullness than Shakespeare himself, but that context illuminates the person that Shakespeare must have been, and together with the writings that he left and other documents that pertain to his life, a remarkably clear and convincing portrait of Shakespeare the person emerges. What makes this reconstruction possible and so rich and informative is Ackroyd’s depth of knowledge of Elizabethan England, and particularly of the city of London. This far reaching grasp of the history and culture of the time in which Shakespeare lived, together with encyclopedic knowledge of Shakespeare’s writings, as well as the writings of Shakespeare’s contemporaries, gives his presentation of Shakespeare a convincing weight of authority.
Shakespeare was a country boy. Ackroyd vividly reconstructs the village life of sixteenth century Stratford and points out how Shakespeare’s plays are full of references to life upon the land that are of such richness and specificity that they evince one who could only had lived and grown up there.
“There are images of stopped ovens and smoking lamps, of washing and scouring, of dusting and sweeping; there are many references to the preparation of food, to boiling and mincing and stewing and frying; there are allusions to badly prepared cakes and unsieved flour, to a rabbit being turned upon a spit and a pasty being ‘pinched.’
An ill-weeded garden is an image of decay. He knows of grafting and pruning, of digging and dunging.
In all he alludes to 108 different plants. In his orchards hang apples and plums, grapes, and apricots.
The flowers of his plays are native to the soil from which he came; the primrose and the violet, the wallflower and the daffodil, the cowslip and the rose, sprang up wild all around him. . . He uses the local names for the flowers of the meadow, such as Ophelia’s crowflowers, and Lear’s cuckoo-flowers; he uses the Warwickshire word for the pansy, love-in-idleness. He employs the local names of bilberry for the whortleberry and honey-stalks for stalks of clover. In that same dialect, too, a dandelion is a ‘golden lad’ before becoming a ‘chimney sweeper’ when its spore is cast upon the breeze.
No poet besides Chaucer has celebrated with such sweetness the enchantment of birds, whether it be the lark ascending or the little grebe diving, the plucky wren or the serene swan. He mentions some sixty species in total.” (p. 33-34)
Born in 1564, he was a first-born son to parents who had already lost two daughters. Infant mortality was high in the sixteenth century and adult male life expectancy was only forty-seven years. Shakespeare himself died on his fifty-second birthday. Death was always a looming presence in sixteenth century England. Plague struck London with regularity and often forced Shakespeare’s acting company to go on the road for the summer while the city of London endured the plague.
As an adult, Shakespeare visited Stratford once a year and in 1597 bought a sumptuous house there where he resided until his death in 1616. Shakespeare was not at all the poor, struggling artist. His father, John, was a member of the glovers’ guild. He also dealt in wool, barley, and timber. He is also known to have leant money at excessive interest rates. John Shakespeare was active in the governance of Stratford, serving in numerous official positions including mayor. He was apparently quite well respected and of some substance in the town. His son, Will, would later become quite adept and astute in money matters. Shakespeare, by the end of his life had actually become rather well to do.
The issue that overshadowed Shakespeare’s life and touched him personally at numerous points was a culture war going on in England at the time between Catholicism and Protestant reformers. It began with Henry the Eighth (1491-1547) and continued for the next couple of centuries. It encompassed more than just religion; it was also about secular power and governance. Shakespeare’s family was Catholic. Shakespeare seems to have had Catholic sympathies although he was not overtly devout or outspoken on matters of religion.  Ackroyd summarizes it thus:
“It is true that he used the language and the structure of the old faith in his drama, but that does not imply that he espoused Catholicism. His parents are likely to have been of the old faith, but he did not necessarily take it with him into his adulthood. The old religion was part of the landscape of his imagination, not of his belief.” (p. 472)
“Despite the myriad allusions to the old faith, Shakespeare in no sense declares himself. In the tragedies, for example, the religious imperatives of piety and consolation are withheld; these are worlds with no god. He never adverts to any particular religious controversy . . . The safest and most likely conclusion, however, must be that despite his manifold Catholic connections Shakespeare professed no particular faith. The church bells did not summon him to worship. They reminded him of decay and of time past. Just as he was a man without opinions, so he was a man without beliefs.” (p. 474)
“Shakespeare grew up with a profound sense of ambiguity. It is one of the informing principles both of his life and of his art. In the plays themselves the themes and situations are endlessly mirrored in the plots and sub-plots, so that the reader or spectator is presented with a series of variations on the same subject without any one of them given preeminence.” (p. 268)
“Entire plays seem to be made up of parallels and contrasts and echoes. All of his characters have mixed natures. Despite the apparently orchestrated harmony of his endings, there are in fact very few genuine resolutions of the action. The closing scenes are deliberately rendered ambiguous, with one character generally excluded from the happy picture of reconciliation. That is why some critics have agreed with Tolstoy that Shakespeare really had ‘nothing to say.'” (p. 269)
Shakespeare seems to have had a strong sexual constitution. We’ll leave aside his “orientation.”
“There are more than thirteen hundred sexual allusions in the plays, as well as the repeated use of sexual slang. There are sixty-six terms for the female vagina. . . There are a host of words for the male penis as well as insistent references to sodomy, buggery, and fellatio. ” (p. 314)
“The poems to his ‘black mistress’ contain allusions to sexual disgust and sexual jealousy that are also to be found in his drama. There is a hint of homosexual passion in The Merchant of Venice, Twelfth Night, Othello, and elsewhere — a passion not unlike that evinced by the writer of the sonnets to his favoured boy. There are also veiled references to venereal disease in connection with the ‘Dark Lady.’ Shakespeare’s sonnets are suffused with sexual humour and sexual innuendo. The language of the poems is itself sexual, quick energetic, ambiguous, amoral. From the evidence of the drama alone it would be clear that he was preoccupied with sexuality in all of its forms.” (p. 314)
“The Elizabethan Age was one of great and open promiscuity. London women were known throughout Europe for their friendliness, and travellers professed to be astonished by the freedom and lewdness of conversation between the sexes. It was not only in the capital, however, that sexual activity was commonplace.”
“It was not always a clean or hygenic period in matters pertaining to the body, at least from a modern perspective, and the sexual act veered between mud wrestling and perfumed coupling. In order to avoid the more unpleasant sights and odours, it was customary for men and women to have sexual congress almost fully clothed.”
“In certain of the sonnets that act provokes shame and disgust. Hamlet is a misogynist. Loathing for the act of sex is apparent in Measure for Measure, and in King Lear, in Timon of Athens, and in Troilus and Cressida. ” (p. 315)
Sexual jealousy is a common theme in Shakespeare’s plays. His own sexual identity seemed to be, shall we say, flexible. Ackroyd points out that Shakespeare created more memorable female roles than any of his contemporaries. He used cross dressing more frequently than any other dramatist. He could identify with and express the hearts and minds of females as well as males with great sensitivity. In his later plays, especially, there is a preoccupation with father-daughter relationships. Ackroyd notes that many biographers of Shakespeare surmise that he suspected his wife, Anne Hathaway Shakespeare, of infidelity, but he points out that this is unprovable. But infidelity, both real and imagined, is a significant element in many of his plays as well as in the sonnets. (p. 317)
This brings up a point that I was hoping to hear more about from Ackroyd, and that is Anne Hathaway and Shakespeare’s marriage. Ackroyd has very little to say about Anne and Will’s marriage. He does research Anne’s family background and notes the relationships between some of her relatives and Shakespeare. But the marriage between Anne and Will remains shrouded in fog. This is not due to any deficiency or neglect on Ackroyd’s part. If anything were known about it, I’m sure he would be aware of it and included it. Shakespeare’s marriage is one of those dark patches that have resisted the penetration of posterity’s curiosity.
Ackroyd reveals a lot about how Shakespeare worked as a dramatist and it is very interesting. He often wrote roles with specific actors in mind. He adapted, revised, and rewrote. Numerous versions of his plays have been found apart from the Folio edition. A play could change depending on the venue and the actors available. Shakespeare always had his eye on the performance. He was not just a scriptwriter, and was perfectly willing to adapt a script to the needs of a performance. He tended to write about the aristocracy: kings, court intrigue, etc., but he was equally familiar and convincing in his portrayals of common people and lowlifes. His characters are often ambivalent and ambiguous as he was himself. Some have noticed in Shakespeare an ambivalence about the theater itself.  “One of his persistent metaphors for human futility and pretension is the theater. When he compares one of his characters to an actor, the allusion is generally negative.” (p. 313)
While much of Shakespeare’s life remains murky and beyond the reach of our prying curiosity, Ackroyd has compiled an impressive wealth of information richly set in the cultural context of Elizabethan England. I have only touched on a few of the many interesting subtopics that he covers. There is so much that is informative, engaging, interesting in this book that it is bound to please anyone drawn to Shakespeare and his writings or the history of England.

Dreama Walker as Becky being questioned by Sandra and Marti.

COMPLIANCE,   film based on true events, written and directed by Craig Sobel, starring Ann Dowd, Dreama Walker, Philip Ettinger, and Pat Healy.

                                                             UNSPEAKABLE ACTS

                                                            By Gaetana Caldwell-Smith 

The shocking, cringe-worthy film, “Compliance,” has the look of a cinema verité documentary.  It takes place during winter in a small-town strip-mall fast-food restaurant with problems of spoiled food due to employee negligence and an illness related short-staff.  Sandra (Ann Dowd), the manager, a stressed-out, heavy-set, middle-age woman, gets a phone call from a man saying that he’s Police Officer Daniels (Pat Healy) who unfortunately can’t take the time to go out there in person because he’s very busy.  He tells her that one of her customer’s complained that an employee, Becky (Dreama Walker), stole money out of her purse an hour ago; she’s with Daniels now along with Sandra’s boss, the franchise owner.  The mostly young staff is on edge as it is; Sandra has warned them that a company “secret shopper” is coming in to rate the place.

When Daniels asks Sandra to take Becky into the break room and search her purse, you know something is not kosher.  From merely rummaging through her purse, the search escalates incrementally, orchestrated by Daniels as the rest of the oblivious staff out front continues serving the steady stream of hungry customers.  He cows and intimidates Sandra, flatters her so that she’ll do anything he asks.  A foreshadowing scene occurs early in the film between Sandra and Becky so that when she takes his side, even referring to Becky as a thief, it rings true.  The cook, Kevin (Philip Ettinger) and a grizzled supplier (Matt Servitto) are the only ones who aren’t fooled.  Sensing things are not right, they make phone calls.

The fact that the entire film is based on telephone dialogue neither constricts nor undermines the suspense and pace.  Plus, the camera breaks it up with shots of customers chowing down in booths; rusted, greasy equipment, dirty dishwater, piles of discarded cartons and wrappers (Chef Ramsey would be appalled), and a parking lot rimmed with melting snow-drifts.  Soon scene will segue to a bland-looking, early fortyish man in sweater and slacks, sitting in front of a littered desk, or making a sandwich, with a phone to his ear.

Daniels threatens Becky with jail-time and fabricates drug deals, implicating her.  Confused, she denies everything, protests his demands, and insists that she’s innocent. He tells her frequently to calm down and insists that she address him as “sir” or “officer.”  He ensures that there is only one person at a time in the room with her. Becky, who now sits naked, covered only by an apron, ends up allowing Sandra, her assistant, Marti (Ashley Atkinson), as well as Sandra’s balding, sheepish, beer-drinking fiancé, Van (Bill Camp), to carry out Daniels’ phone directed, step-by step searches tantamount to those perpetrated on prisoners suspected of concealing contraband in bodily orifices.  Daniels rewards Van for conducting the most egregious search with a sex act by Becky. 

            You ask yourself why Sandra and the others allowed this to happen.  People are conditioned through religion, education, and government to obey the law and not to question authority.  The man spoke convincingly, repeatedly stating that he was an officer of the law, asking, “Don’t you want to do the right thing?” “Help me out here,” and “The sooner you do this, the sooner it’ll all be over,” interspersed with threats.  Also, he had done his homework on these people, knew their weaknesses and used the information to his advantage.

 Can we use the message of the film to explain how tyrannical, imperialistic governments gain control of its citizens?  How 100s of thousands of people are coerced into leaving their homes and boarding freight cars that will take them to their deaths?  How millions of innocent people are driven from their lands, herded into reservations, or concentration camps as were Japanese citizens in California?  Can it explain the exploitation of women?  Minorities?  The undocumented, and so on? 

Though this cringe-inducing film takes place in the restaurant, mostly in the back room, it is not claustrophobic.  The acting feels natural, you sense that these are real, hardworking people asked to carry out unspeakable acts on an innocent person.

 

Event 1 July 2012

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse fringilla dignissim rhoncus. Sed semper mattis dolor et faucibus. Aliquam mollis accumsan dolor porta laoreet. Aliquam vel metus urna, eu sagittis nisi. Aliquam ultrices hendrerit dui, vitae bibendum ipsum tincidunt eget. In accumsan aliquet tincidunt. Nullam lobortis magna ut nunc egestas eu faucibus leo sollicitudin. Fusce id mauris malesuada orci ullamcorper.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Phasellus justo est, malesuada vitae semper non, iaculis in elit. Suspendisse ac metus magna, porta tristique orci. Nulla malesuada faucibus lacinia. Pellentesque aliquet, quam in pharetra cursus, tellus elit egestas leo, id tincidunt orci purus vitae magna. Duis mi ante, fermentum in sagittis id, rutrum id velit. Aenean accumsan ligula non leo rhoncus in ultrices ipsum tincidunt. In nulla ante, iaculis sed tristique sed, congue hendrerit leo.

Maecenas pulvinar orci vel tortor laoreet at suscipit dolor condimentum. Sed rutrum pellentesque placerat. Nulla facilisi. Praesent congue, turpis porta venenatis ullamcorper, purus enim malesuada massa, vel auctor libero urna vel ligula. Suspendisse non pulvinar eros. Donec consequat pulvinar molestie. Fusce non sollicitudin metus. Duis vitae purus sit amet nisl sodales auctor. Sed vitae scelerisque nunc. Nullam non est et ligula rutrum adipiscing. Pellentesque eu nunc erat, hendrerit ultrices nisi. Pellentesque varius quam eu dolor iaculis sed blandit velit faucibus. Integer sagittis mi in leo tincidunt posuere.

Integer tincidunt accumsan lacus sit amet venenatis. Fusce ut dui sed risus ultricies rutrum ut non massa. Integer aliquet tristique felis non porta. Quisque tempus sem vitae nunc mattis egestas eu at risus. Donec ut dolor enim, posuere varius arcu. Vivamus ultricies gravida magna a semper. Etiam sit amet felis vitae felis interdum auctor.

Vivamus mollis magna ac purus tincidunt congue. In mattis dolor eu erat dictum tincidunt. Suspendisse scelerisque convallis mollis. Vivamus sed sem ante, in scelerisque dolor. Sed lorem lacus, ornare non convallis ut, feugiat in ante. Curabitur sed ligula sem, et hendrerit sem. Suspendisse ultrices, enim sit amet iaculis auctor, massa neque malesuada dui, ac condimentum risus leo varius neque. Mauris vel metus dolor, vel imperdiet enim. Vivamus in urna nisi. Vivamus id elit in tortor rhoncus fermentum non eu lacus. Proin et ullamcorper neque. Pellentesque suscipit est sit amet velit molestie aliquam. Donec suscipit bibendum enim, ut ornare nulla dictum in. Morbi eu risus turpis, in dignissim justo. Ut eget porta velit.

Etiam sit amet neque id mauris convallis lacinia id in risus. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos. Morbi condimentum euismod sagittis. In nec erat eget eros porttitor mollis non ut justo. Suspendisse nisi nisl, pellentesque in placerat sit amet, commodo vel elit. Quisque nec justo nunc. Maecenas id risus vitae nulla laoreet semper.

July 2012