Skip to main content
All Posts By

Joanne Engelhardt

Kontiki — Film Review

By Joe Cillo

Kontiki

Directed by Joachim Rønning and Espen Sandberg

 

 

I never read the book, so I am taking the film as presented.  It is a gripping adventure story.  As it began and I realized what they were about to undertake, I sort of wished I hadn’t come to it.  This kind of a movie is highly tense.  There is a constant sense of imminent, unexpected danger that could appear at any moment — and does.  I myself am scared to death of the ocean.  I don’t like to go anywhere near it.  I see it as deceptively benign and seductive, but extremely perilous, and utterly ruthless. The ocean kills people quickly and with utter indifference.  The hazards are myriad, often hidden, subtle, and merciless.  One of my most disturbing fantasies is to be lost at sea, helpless and alone in the middle of the vast ocean.  The thought of this makes me extremely uneasy, and I don’t like to dwell on it.  And that is exactly the subject of this movie.

It is very well done, well thought out, well acted, well filmed, and well put together.  It works very well as an adventure story that keeps you on the edge of your seat, sort of squirming nervously and gritting your teeth.  Personally, I would rather have Moby Dick: a probing, inward looking self exploration and philosophical search.  Kontiki doesn’t do very much of that.  It stays on the surface level of dealing with the immediate dramas and threats.  It does not philosophize or psychologize or ask itself what inner demons are driving a group of men to undertake such an ill-advised venture.

Thor Heyerdahl (Pal Hagen) seems to have picked up his accomplices as he went along.  They came to him offering their services.  Some people will jump to get on board a crazy, fantastic adventure, oblivious to the extreme danger of the quest.  But why?  The film is not so interested in this.  But this is what I was thinking about all the way through.  The academic question of whether it is historically possible that Polynesia could have been settled by South Americans is not enough to explain why these men undertook this.  This controversy could be settled by other means.  It is not necessary to put one’s life on the line under the adverse conditions of being on a raft at sea in order to make this point.  No other academics would do such a thing, and it was not academics that lined up to accompany Heyerdahl on this trip.  These men were not passion driven archeologists and anthropologists.  They were just guys from a variety of backgrounds who wanted to get away from something, and were willing to latch on to just about any means of doing it.

We have to look more closely at Heyerdahl and the kind of person he was to understand what led to this quest.  He was a grandiose person who wanted to be admired for his courage and daring, to be seen as someone who had the strength and the resolve to pit himself against Nature at her most perilous and emerge victorious.  He saw himself as a conquering hero.  From an early age he showed a willingness to risk his life in attention getting exploits, and nearly got killed as a small boy falling off an ice floe in a pond while trying to retrieve a stranded object on the floe.  He had a sense of invulnerability that I think the ocean tempered.  He was probably not comfortable looking inward and dealing with the mundane responsibilities of everyday life — such as a marriage.  He needed that sense of risk with the promise of great reward, similar to the inner torment gnawing at the heart of the compulsive gambler.  But the gambler creates this sense of risk and reward by betting money on the outcome of chance events, giving an artificial sense of drama and importance to something that is otherwise meaningless.  Heyerdahl took real risks with a clearly visible payoff in view.  That is the difference between the adventurer and the gambler, and why adventurers are more interesting.  Their exploits, when successful, can have socially meaningful consequences, whereas the gambler’s satisfaction is narcissistic and strictly short term.  The adventurer mentality is rather masochistic in that it starts from the position that one must subject oneself to these onerous trials and tribulations at the peril of death in order to win the love and admiration that one desires.  But Heyerdahl was able to fulfill his fantasy.  Many others who start from a similar psychological position do not fare as well, and Heyerdahl himself could just as well have ended up dead and unheard of.

Heyerdahl’s marriage was touched on, but not developed in any depth.  The film did make a point of showing him wearing his wedding ring throughout the voyage.  I suspect that ambivalence about his marriage was a significant factor in motivating this trip.  That was made explicit in his second in command Herman Watzinger (Anders Christiansen).  The other four men we do not get to know very much about.  Except for Heyerdahl and Watzinger there is not much in the way of character development.  In a short film like this you have to make choices and the film chose to concentrate on the charismatic, attractive Heyerdahl, and the dramatic highlights that occurred during this long, dull voyage.  I wish the film had been more expansive about the subsequent lives of the six participants.  There are only a couple of cursory sentences mentioning the continuation of their lives after Kontiki.  I did look up the continuation of Heyerdahl’s marriage, and he and Liv did divorce.  Heyerdahl was actually married three times in his life.

The movie gave me some impulse to read the book, because I suspect — I am sure –there is much that was left out of this film.  I would like to have seen more about the relations between the men on the raft.  The film relates a number of tense moments, but I suspect there were a lot more and the relationships between a small group of men confined to a small space for that long a time under the constant threat of death would have been an interesting avenue to explore.  There is only so much you can do in 118 minutes and this journey took over 100 days, so naturally it had to be an abbreviation.

Despite my aversion to the ocean, I do like adventure stories and am drawn to the personalities of adventurers.  I am something of an adventurer myself of a different sort.  If you have that spark within yourself, or if you just like suspense and drama, this film will appeal to you.  If you are a thinker or a psychologist, this film will probably leave a lot to be desired.  It focuses on the immediate and the surface, but it does so quite effectively and is very well crafted.

Rolling Stones Concert — HP Pavilion, San Jose, CA 05-08-13

By Joe Cillo

Rolling Stones Concert

HP Pavilion, San Jose, California

May 8, 2013

 

 

This was my second Rolling Stones concert.  The first was in November of 2005 at SBC Park in San Francisco, part of the Stones Bigger Bang tour.  I would rate them as two of the best concerts of my life.  The Stones really know how to put on a show.  They have this down and it just feels like a class act from beginning to end.

They’re definitely older than they used to be (but who isn’t?), but they can still keep a full house enthralled for two solid hours without a break.  The show lasted about two hours and fifteen minutes without an intermission and it was the same in the 2005 concert at SBC Park.  That’s something I like about them.  I hate intermissions.  The Stones just keep the momentum going nonstop.  The HP Pavilion seats 17,496, and they were probably close to capacity.  About a quarter of the seats in the auditorium behind the stage were purposely left vacant, but they made up for it with seating and standing room on the main floor.  I didn’t see any vacant seats.

I had some good fortune in getting these tickets.  I had heard about the upcoming concert probably on the radio.  I checked into getting tickets and somehow found out that the day they were to go on sale there would be about 1000 tickets available at a drastically reduced price of $85.  A friend who wanted to go urged me to try for them, so when they went on sale on a Monday morning I went online at that time and managed to score two tickets at $85.  I believe the next highest price was about double that.

So I had the tickets, but they were will-call tickets.  They would not send them out.  They didn’t want any scalping of these low priced tickets.  We had no idea where we were sitting.  I figured it would be some sort of standing room, but it was actually a seat after all.  On morning of the concert I received the following message from them:

TICKET PICK-UP INSTRUCTIONS

Pick-up your tickets at the check-in table located at N. Autumn St. (under stairwell) adjacent to the South Ticket Window.

The line forms starting at 6:15pm – do not arrive early. Seating locations are pulled at random. Doors open at 6:45pm.

We will be using strict anti-scalper measures to ensure that these $85 tickets go to Stones fans and don’t end up on the resale market with wildly inflated prices. We appreciate your attention to the following, so that you have the best experience possible:

  • Your picture ID, confirmation number, and the      credit card used to make the purchase are required for pick-up. You will      not be permitted to pick up your tickets without these three (3) items.
  • You must pick up your tickets in person, along      with your guest.
  • Once you have the tickets in hand, you will be      escorted into the arena. There will not be an opportunity to leave with      your tickets before going into the show.
  • If we suspect any reselling or transfer of      these tickets they will be immediately voided and you will not be entitled      to any refund.

 

It was my first time in the HP Pavilion.  It is an indoor facility and an excellent venue for a concert of this type.  Our seats were near the top of the upper level about 90 degrees to the stage.  As far as seats go in that arena, they were probably some of the least desirable, but I didn’t mind at all.  The auditorium is small enough that just about any seat is good, and we could see and hear quite well.  Large projection screens were set up that provided a closer look at the performance.  The image quality was excellent as well as the camera work.  The Stones are a class act.  They really know how to take care of an audience and present a performance everyone is sure to like and feel very satisfied with.

The concert was scheduled for 8pm, but it actually started around 9.  There was no warm up band.  Keith Richards seemed to be having a good time.  He was smiling and really seemed to be enjoying being out there performing.  Mick’s voice is still strong.  He still struts and prances the whole time, but he doesn’t run as much as he did the previous time I saw him.  He and Keith will both turn 70 this year.  They all look thin and wiry.  There is no obesity epidemic with them.  They keep themselves in pretty good shape.  Their sound is still strong and vibrant, although I felt it did not have quite the same riveting energy and raw power that it did in their earlier years.  But then, how many of you have the same energy and vigor that you had in your twenties and thirties?  But let’s leave off with how old they are.  Let’s just consider them on the merits.

This concert was fabulous.  It was a greatest hits parade from beginning to end.  I’ll list the set, but admit at the outset that it is incomplete, but most of it is here.  They opened with

Get off of My Cloud followed by

Gimme Shelter featuring Lisa Fisher, who also sang backup throughout

Paint It Black was a very poignant choice, I thought

John Fogerty was brought out to share the lead on It’s All Over Now, which I would judge one of the highlights of the evening

Bonnie Raitt sang Let It Bleed with Mick, which worked very well.

Keith did Before They Make Me Run, and Happy

Midnight Rambler, Jumpin Jack Flash, and Brown Sugar were probably my merit badge choices for the evening, but everything was good.

They also did Bitch, Miss You, Start Me Up, Sympathy for the Devil, Emotional Rescue, Honky Tonk Woman, and they brought out a chorus for You Can’t Always Get What You Want.  They closed with Satisfaction, with Mick Taylor making an appearance on guitar, as well as on several other numbers.

I am sure there are a couple of other songs that I have left out.  I didn’t keep strict track as I went along.  I especially enjoyed the local guests they brought in to share in a few of the numbers.  John Fogerty stands out in my mind.  It was a totally satisfying presentation.  The Stones are consummate performers.  The music is great as it has always been, and they went full bore all the way to the end.  Hard not to like a concert like that.

Deceptive Practice — Film Review

By Joe Cillo

Deceptive Practice:  The Mysteries and Mentors of Ricky Jay

Directed by Molly Edelstein

 

This is a fascinating documentary featuring sleight of hand artist, Ricky Jay.  He is a master of card tricks and anything related to magic.  I love magic shows, but have never had any desire to do it myself.  This man is very different.  He started doing magic at age four and has been immersed in it ever since.  The film is not a systematic biography, although it does contain much information about Ricky Jay and his life as a magician.  It is full of intriguing displays of magic tricks and a wealth of information about the history of the practice of sleight of hand and many of its early practitioners.  Ricky Jay has been a collector of historical materials and writings on the history of magic, and has written a number of books himself on the subject.  The film drew heavily on these resources to offer a full bodied overview of many of the precursors and mentors to Ricky Jay going back into the nineteenth century.  The practitioners seem to be predominantly Jewish and they form a tight subculture wherein the craft is passed down from mentors to students.  The film did not explore how the magic tricks are done.  You will not go behind the scenes and see how the illusions are created, but what interested me is that it is very much an artform of individual practitioners.  Magicians tend keep their methods secret, not only from the public, but also from each other.  It is a craft that one has to learn through mentoring and ultimately through creative exploration on one’s own.  I was also impressed with the virtuosity that many magicians achieve.  They are akin to top level musicians or athletes who spend many years in total dedication to mastering the technique of their art.

The film does not attempt an in depth personal exploration of Ricky Jay.  It tends to avoid delving into his personal life, although we do learn that he left home at an early age and has had little contact with his family since.  He has also been married for seven years and seems pleased with his wife, although she is not interviewed in the film.  There are many interviews with people who know Ricky Jay and have worked with him, including playwright and director, David Mamet.  Jay is reputed to be difficult and abrasive, but in the film he comes off as low key, engaging and very personable.  He is obviously highly intelligent and the absolute master of his craft.  I didn’t get any profound insight into his character or into the psychology of magic from this film.  The film is not thought provoking in that respect.  It is a compendium of facts on the history of magic, some of its more notable practitioners, and lots of sensational tricks that will dazzle you.  One cannot help but be drawn into this film by the skill of the practitioners, the illusions one is doomed to fall for, and the eccentric, anomalous individuals who made this art form their life’s obsession.  Seen at the San Francisco International Film Festival, May 6, 2013.

Cinderella — San Francisco Ballet Performance

By Joe Cillo

Cinderella

San Francisco Ballet Performance

May 4, 2013

 

 

There are many versions and variants of the Cinderella story.  The most popular in recent times are the French version written by Charles Perrault in 1697 and the German version(s) of the Grimm Brothers from the early 1800s.  The Disney animated movie version, which was released in 1950, is heavily influenced by Perrault and is probably the most familiar version of the story in America.  The American Cinderella has been forcefully criticized by Jane Yolen (1982) as being

“a sorry excuse for a heroine, pitiable and useless.  She cannot perform even a simple action to save herself . . . Cinderella begs, she whimpers, and at last has to be rescued by — guess who — the mice! (p. 302)  “The mass-market books have brought forward a good, malleable, forgiving little girl and put her in Cinderella’s slippers.  However, in most of the Cinderella tales there is no forgiveness in the heroine’s heart.  No mercy.  Just justice.” (p. 301)  “Hardy, helpful, inventive, that was the Cinderella of the old tales, but not of the mass market in the nineteenth century.  Today’s mass market books are worse.” (p. 300)  “The mass market American “Cinderellas” have presented the majority of American children with the wrong dream.  They offer the passive princess, the ‘insipid beauty waiting . . . for Prince Charming’ . . . But it is the wrong Cinderella and the magic of the old tales has been falsified, the true meaning lost, perhaps forever.”  (p. 302-03)

I concur with this assessment, and so it was with great expectancy that I attended the San Francisco Ballet’s performance this weekend in the high hope that they would do something interesting and inventive with this ancient tale and its endless possibilities.  Boy, did they ever deliver!  The performance was magnificent.  It fulfilled the highest and best potential of dance as an art form.  It perfectly realized my own aesthetic and conception of what dance should be.  Of all the dance performances I have seen, I would say this was the best one.  It had everything.  The dancers, of course, were superb, as always at the San Francisco Ballet, but this production was well thought out with great intelligence.  It is a big concept.  It has a broad narrative line with numerous subplots.  The story is told in nonverbal language that can be easily followed by a viewer.  The ballet was not about athleticism, or a celebration of the physical beauty and grace of the body for its own sake, but rather the body and its capacity for movement and communication are employed to tell a story and create relationships between characters that evolve and change throughout the drama.  It was dynamic as well as emotionally and intellectually challenging.  The music was perfectly suited to the dancing and to the action on stage, which I always notice and appreciate.  The lighting, the sets, the staging, and the costumes were highly imaginative, and beautifully done.  It is a visually enchanting spectacle.  Large bouquets to Choreographer Christopher Wheeldon, Librettist Craig Lucas, Scene and Costume designer Julian Crouch, and Lighting Designer Natasha Katz, Tree and Carriage Designer Basil Twist, and Projection Designer Daniel Brodie, and the entire staff.  This show is a first rate accomplishment.

The production draws more from the Grimm tradition rather than from Perrault, but it incorporates creative, original innovations that give it a uniqueness and individuality that in my opinion is superior to the older versions of the tale.  The San Francisco Ballet version has complexity.  The characters have depth in contrast to the fairy tale characters, which tend to be simplified and cartoonish.

Following the Grimm version, the story centers around a tree growing out of Cinderella’s mother’s grave.  There is no fairy god mother in this story.  Instead four Fates shadow Cinderella throughout the performance, watching over her, encouraging her, and guiding her in the right direction at crucial times.  There are a variety of wonderfully costumed fairies and animal characters who support Cinderella.  Cinderella’s father remains a player throughout the story, sometimes protecting her from the harshness and excess of the stepmother.  In the fairy tale versions the father seems to disappear and abandons Cinderella to her fate at the hands of her stepfamily.  This tends to gut the story of its emotional sense.  It makes it seem as if stepmothers and stepsisters are inherently evil or hostile toward their stepsiblings, and this is not necessary the case nor inevitable, particularly if the father is absent or dead.  It also leaves one wondering how the father could simply abandon his natural daughter from his first wife to the cruelty of his new family.  However, once it is realized that the hostility between Cinderella and her stepfamily is rooted in a sexual rivalry for the father, then the whole story makes perfect sense — but most versions of the story will not deal with this.  Cinderella becomes sanitized and desexualized.

I liked the San Francisco Ballet’s concept because it moves in the direction of keeping the story emotionally and sexually alive by retaining the father as an involved player throughout the story.  He is at the ball with everyone else and dances with all three of his daughters.  It would have helped if this had been a little more overtly sexual, but it worked.  The conflict and the implications could be discerned.

When the father remarries and the stepmother and her two daughters are brought to meet Cinderella for the first time, they offer her a bouquet of flowers which Cinderella contemptuously throws on the ground.  This action seems to set up the antagonism between Cinderella and her stepfamily.  On the other hand, was the bouquet a genuine gesture, or a cynical act of hypocrisy?  This was an interesting twist that contrasted with the usual the versions of the fairy tale where the animosity between the stepfamily and Cinderella is attributed to the inherent cruelty of the stepsisters and their mother, which is rather simpleminded.  In the San Francisco Ballet’s conception the arriving stepfamily appears to reach out to Cinderella and she rejects them.  Why?  Obviously, because she had her father all to herself and their arrival brings her exclusive possession of his attention and affection to an end.  This involves Cinderella in creating her own predicament.

If anything, I think Cinderella should have been even more of a bitch.  This is a nasty, ugly sexual rivalry and should not be cast as a struggle between Good and Evil, as it traditionally is.  The San Francisco Ballet moves a long step in the right direction, but I think it could be emphasized even more.  I liked that in this performance the sexual attraction between the father and the step sisters as well as Cinderella was evident, and Cinderella’s relationship with the Prince has palpable sexual overtones.  During the ball they disappear several times from the stage as if going off for a tryst and then return for more dancing.  This Cinderella was not a sanitized, innocent, passive player being helplessly pushed around.  She had some character and some strength of her own.  Nor are the stepsisters and their mother uniformly evil and cruel.  Cinderella is able to form a somewhat friendly rapport with the younger sister, Clementine.  The Prince also becomes more interesting in this retelling.  He is not an idealized Prince Charming devoid of personality, but is something of a rogue who causes his parents, the King and Queen, consternation.  He has a companion, Benjamin, who takes a fancy to the step sister, Clementine, and in the end, they, too, marry in a sort of double wedding.

At the end of the first act when the animals dress Cinderella in her gown for the ball there was no pumpkin carriage (that comes from Perrault).  Instead Cinderella disappears into an opening in the trunk of the tree — which looks remarkably like a vulva — and shortly emerges transformed by the forest animals into a princess in a splendid carriage being whisked off to the ball. It is a very powerful, effective scene.

In the final scene the reconciliation between Cinderella and her stepmother is very modest.  She plants a small kiss on her stepmother’s cheek, but it shows considerable restraint.  It is almost perfunctory.  However, it is less grotesque than having the birds peck out their eyes as in the Grimm version.

Altogether the San Francisco Ballet’s recasting of Cinderella goes several steps beyond the Grimm Brothers in quality and emotional sophistication.  I hope it replaces the Disney version in the popular consciousness.  It was truly a privilege to see it.  As far as dance performances go, this is as good as it gets.  It makes me grateful to be living San Francisco where it is possible to go out in the evening and see a performance of this high quality.  If you can go out in the evening and see something of this caliber and imaginative power, you know you are in one of the best places in all the world to be.  This is why we live here.

 

 

 

 

Yolen, Jane (1982)  America’s Cinderella.  In Cinderella: A Casebook.  Edited by Alan Dundes.  Madison, WI:  University of Wisconsin Press. pp. 294-306.

Ron Paul’s commentary on the Boston bombing

By Joe Cillo

Liberty  Was Also Attacked in Boston

 by Ron Paul

 

Forced lockdown of a city.  Militarized police riding tanks in the streets. Door-to-door armed searches without warrant. Families  thrown out of their homes at gunpoint to be searched without probable cause.  Businesses forced to close. Transport shut down.

These were not the scenes  from a military coup in a far off banana republic, but rather the scenes just  over a week ago in Boston as the United States got a taste of martial law. The  ostensible reason for the military-style takeover of parts of Boston was that  the accused perpetrator of a horrific crime was on the loose. The Boston bombing  provided the opportunity for the government to turn what should have been a  police investigation into a military-style occupation of an American city. This  unprecedented move should frighten us as much or more than the attack  itself.

 

What has been sadly  forgotten in all the celebration of the capture of one suspect and the killing  of his older brother is that the police state tactics in Boston did absolutely  nothing to catch them. While the media crowed that the apprehension of the  suspects was a triumph of the new surveillance state – and, predictably, many  talking heads and Members of Congress called for even more government cameras  pointed at the rest of us – the fact is none of this caught the suspect.  Actually, it very nearly gave the suspect a chance to make a getaway.

The “shelter in place” command imposed by the governor of Massachusetts was lifted before the suspect  was caught. Only after this police state move was ended did the owner of the  boat go outside to check on his property, and in so doing discover the  suspect.

No, the suspect was not  discovered by the paramilitary troops terrorizing the public. He was discovered  by a private citizen, who then placed a call to the police. And he was  identified not by government surveillance cameras, but by private citizens who  willingly shared their photographs with the police.

As journalist Tim Carney wrote  last week:

“Law enforcement in Boston  used cameras to ID the bombing suspects, but not police cameras. Instead,  authorities asked the public to submit all photos and videos of the finish-line  area to the FBI, just in case any of them had relevant images. The surveillance  videos the FBI posted online of the suspects came from private businesses that  use surveillance to punish and deter crime on their  property.”

Sadly, we have been conditioned to  believe that the job of the government is to keep us safe, but in reality the  job of the government is to protect our liberties. Once the government decides  that its role is to keep us safe, whether economically or physically, they can  only do so by taking away our liberties. That is what happened in  Boston.

Three people were killed in  Boston and that is tragic. But what of the fact that over 40 persons are  killed in the United States each day, and sometimes ten persons can be killed in  one city on any given weekend? These cities are not locked-down by paramilitary  police riding in tanks and pointing automatic weapons at innocent  citizens.

This is unprecedented and  is very dangerous. We must educate ourselves and others about our precious civil  liberties to ensure that we never accept demands that we give up our  Constitution so that the government can pretend to protect us.

 

April  29, 2013

The Artist and the Model — Film Review

By Joe Cillo

The Artist and the Model

Directed by  Fernando Trueba

 

 

This film is very similar to the film, Renoir, that I reviewed here a couple of weeks ago.  I wonder if they borrowed the script?  An aging artist (Jean Rochefort), who isn’t named, is sitting out the war (World War II in this case) in a placid pastoral landscape.  He meets up with a gorgeous young girl (Aida Foche) who becomes his model.  The girl spends a lot of her time on screen naked, which really makes the film.  Some young girls bodies are so compelling that you can just look at them for hours and hours without losing interest.  They have a mesmerizing quality about them that just won’t let go.  Foche has that, and that is what keeps this film alive.  Because there is not a whole lot going on.  Watching somebody sketch and sculpt and walk through the country meadows can wear out after a fairly short time.  But Foche’s nude body does not.

There is a lot of silence in this film, which I liked.  It gives you a chance to think about the characters and what is going on.  Unfortunately, that is not a lot.  The script is not as well constructed nor is the story line as interesting as Renoir.  Nor is the conversation as stimulating and as thought provoking.  By every measure this film is inferior.  So if you only have enough money to attend one of these, make it Renoir.  I would have said it is a good film, interesting to watch, although mostly devoid of action and rather slow moving, but the ending made me mad at the director and the screen writer.  It made absolutely no sense.  It completely nullified everything that had been established about the character throughout the film.  I took it as a gesture of futility on the part of the filmmakers.  They didn’t know what else to do, so they trashed the whole movie, their lead character, and everything the film had set out to do.  Were they so dissatisfied with what they did that they decided to turn it into Romeo and Juliet?  It’s utter nonsense.

The film is in black and white.  In French with subtitles.  Seen at the San Francisco International Film Festival, Sundance Kabuki Cinema, April 28, 2013.

Blackfish — Film Review

By Joe Cillo

Blackfish

Directed by Gabriela Cowperthwaite

 

 

I have never been to SeaWorld, and I’ve never had any desire to go there.  It always seemed to me like shallow entertainment which gives people the wrong impression of orcas in particular, and the relationship between humans and the animal kingdom in general.  This film starts to set things in the right relationship.

It is a documentary about SeaWorld, the whales that perform in their shows, the trainers that train them, and whether or not it makes sense to be doing this.  The impetus and center of gravity of the film is the death of trainer Dawn Brancheau, who was killed on February 24, 2010, by Tillikum, a 12,000 pound male orca at SeaWorld, Orlando, Florida.  Brancheau was 40 years old and a senior trainer who knew Tillikum well and was comfortable with him.  SeaWorld blames Brancheau for the mishap, but Tillikum had killed at least two other humans prior to Brancheau, and he also had a history of maltreatment, not only at SeaWorld, but also before he came to SeaWorld from Sealand of the Pacific in Victoria, Canada.  The film explores all of this material in great detail.  It is well documented and accentuated with interviews with former trainers who know Dawn Brancheau, and who provide much background and insight into the world of training orcas, the relationships of the trainers to the whales, and the conditions the whales are forced to live under at SeaWorld.  Did Dawn Brancheau make a mistake that cost her her life, or was this a ticking time bomb destined to go off sooner or later?  You decide.

The film makes the case that it is not such a good idea to be keeping these huge animals in the cramped quarters of the SeaWorld pools, separated from their natural social connections, and it is even less prudent to be letting young trainers, who don’t really have a clue what they are getting into, to swim into a tank with these powerful undomesticated animals.

How do you think a behemoth like Tillikum gets to be 12,000 pounds?  Not by eating potato chips in front of his TV.  These animals are top predators.  There are good reasons why they are called “killer” whales.  There is one dramatic sequence in the film of several whales attacking a seal that is stranded on an ice floe.  The whales work together to tip the ice floe enough that the seal is toppled into the water.  Once that happens, it is all over for the seal in seconds.  It seems to me that this is the truth that people — including children — should see about these whales.

There is a video on YouTube of a man clowning on a beach at the water’s edge.  Two orcas creep up on him right at the shoreline, knock him down, and devour him in seconds right before your very eyes.  Some people think the video is fake.  It shows you how strong is this will to believe in the benign nature of fierce predatory animals.  Perhaps it is a way of denying our own vulnerability and how quickly we can be snuffed out and disappear at the hands — or rather jaws — of natural enemies.  But this sort of thing goes on in the animal kingdom all the time every day.  An animal can be placidly going about his business, and suddenly, without warning, be beset and completely devoured within seconds.   It is a discomfiting thought which we would prefer to dispel, how sudden our lives can be snuffed out by powerful predators, who don’t really hate us, they just want to consume us.  It’s nothing personal.  Just as it is nothing personal when we raise chickens, or pigs, or cattle on factory farms in minimal conditions feeding them just enough to get their weight to a certain point in an optimal number of days at which time they will be abruptly and unceremoniously slaughtered.  You don’t stew about that when you sit down and enjoy a sumptuous steak in a fine restaurant, do you?  Predators cannot afford to be sentimental about the animals they must kill in order to survive and thrive.  The orcas did not feel sorry for that seal they toppled from the ice floe, nor for the man they probably mistook for a seal on the beach.  Rather than dwell on that unsettling thought that these animals in their natural habitat would kill us in a moment, we turn them into friendly teddy bears, companions who can communicate with us and be friends with us.  Denial is a first line defense against anxiety.

The film does not mention the parent corporation of Seaworld (which used to be Anheuser-Busch until it was sold to the Blackstone Group in 2009).  It is now called Seaworld Entertainment Inc., which is 63% owned by Blackstone.  The Blackstone Group is a multi-billion dollar private equity firm based in New York City, with offices around the world.   Just this week Blackstone held an initial public offering of Seaworld Entertainment stock.  According to the Wall Street Journal the stock went up 24% on the first day of trading (Wall Street Journal, April 22, 2013).  After this film circulates I wonder how well the stock will do?

Blackstone cares about making money, and they’re making a lot of it on Seaworld.  They don’t particularly care about the trainers at Seaworld, much less the orcas.  They refused to be interviewed for this film or make any comment about its findings.  This is an entertainment business that sells illusions.  Illusions are strongly held beliefs or viewpoints that are in contradiction to facts or conditions that should be obvious.  They reflect a human need to see things in a certain way in order to allay anxiety, to provide a consoling view of life that offers comfort or a feeling of security.

The illusion in this case is the belief that the natural world is a benign place where humans are in control and living in harmony with the other creatures in nature: that orcas, who are top predators in the wild, are actually benign, friendly, good natured companions to humans who can be domesticated to behave like entertaining pets.  However, this illusion is starting to wear a little thin and fray around the edges.  In order to maintain it, much truth has to be concealed, downplayed, and outright falsified, which the film documents very effectively.

The Seaworld trainers seem to be goodhearted, but naive, young people who have very little background in orca behavior or ethology, but are possessed of the illusion that you can get into a tank of water with a 12,000 pound captive whale that lives by killing, make him do all kinds of ridiculous things that he would never do in the wild, and be perfectly safe.  People want to believe that they can be friends with their natural enemies, that the most fearsome predators can be tamed and transformed into loving companions.  Yes, the animals have personalities, they have intelligence, they have a complex social life, they have sophisticated ways of communicating among themselves.  Some people seem surprised and charmed to discover this.  But it doesn’t mean you can be friends with them.  They cannot be a substitute for wholesome, loving human companionship.  The captive environment is very artificial and the animals understand their dependence on their human handlers in this extraordinarily unnatural situation.

The film points to a record of at least 70 incidents where killer whales have attacked their human trainers and several where the trainers have been killed.  Seaworld consistently blames the trainers, saying they made errors which led to the attacks.  In some cases this was true, but on the other hand, you don’t have a lot of margin with killer whales, and it is also true that the whales are kept under inhumane conditions and often treated badly, which, over time, probably builds up a lot of rage and resentment.  Sometimes the whales reach a point where they decide enough is enough.

The film brings to light a lot of unsavory conditions in an inherently perilous enterprise that SeaWorld would prefer to keep under wraps, and which they have done pretty successfully for many years.  This speaks to the power of this illusory phantasm of the benign natural world in the public imagination.  People want to take their kids to this grandiose spectacle and be dazzled by huge powerful animals cavorting to entertain human audiences pleased with themselves to have subdued and dominated these breathtaking creatures.  But it is insipid and barbaric.  It gives kids the wrong message about the relationship between humans and animals and it gives them a very wrong impression about killer whales.   Don’t go to Seaworld.  Watch this film instead.  Seen at the San Francisco International Film Festival, Sundance Kabuki Cinema, April 27, 2013.

 

“Jesus Christ Superstar” – City College of SF

By Joe Cillo

1970 album cover for the American musical production.

 

The theatre arts department of City College of San Francisco has done it again,  in fact, it exceeds its previous productions with  Andrew Lloyd Webber and lyricist Tim Rice’s iconic rock opera “Jesus Christ Superstar.”   It literally rocks the house!

Director and choreographer Deborah Shaw and musical director Michael Shahani, worked closely with set designer Patrick Toebe and lighting designer Jeffrey Kelly to create what Shaw described as a “steam punk” atmosphere, enhanced by George Georges sound design of clanking metal and hissing steam.  A metal scaffolding makes up the many-leveled set, backed by what appears to be a wall of thick, heavy, frayed ropes descending from the flies behind a scrim against which an array of psychedelic lights play, often changing colors and pulsing in time to tunes like “What’s the Buzz.”   Shahani’s orchestra can barely be seen behind the scrim, but it’s certainly heard.

The large cast of close to three dozen actors, singers and or dancers consists of students, alumni, and other Bay Area talent.  They are outfitted in Ralph Hoy’s inventive costumes.  He and his staff: Sarah Moss, Julie Wong, Tatiana Prue, and Steve Murray, gives the production a certain 1930s Brechtian look.  Characters such as the Soul Girls, Dancers, and Prostitutes wear short-skirts and blouses of colorful netting with flared sleeves, and low-cut, form-fitting, leather-like and metal studded vests, in the “Xena, Warrior Princess” mode.  Their feet are shod in thick-soled, black, stomper boots fastened with metal buckles.  The Three Angels’ (Natalie Ayala, Kasia Kransnopolska and Holly Labus, who also double as Prostitutes) costumes are augmented with black wings.  The apostles and chorus wear outfits of early 20th century laborers.

After the Overture, black-bearded David Peterson as Judas Iscariot enters, singing “Heaven on Their Minds.”  He wears a long, brown duster over pants and vest;  his long hair in dreads, eyes rimmed in black.  The amazing Peterson is electric, charismatic and passionate, yet, at the same time he allows Judas’s vulnerability and confusion to surface, so that you almost feel sorry for the guy for selling out Jesus.  Peterson’s  voice,  like rough velvet, is strong and full of emotion.

Jesus (Zachary Bukarev-Padlo)  is not the robed, long-haired, bearded sandal-wearing  ethereal being we’re used to seeing, but a sweet-faced guy with a neat goatee and short blonde, wavy hair.  He wears a khaki shirt, jodhpurs, boots, and a strange skewed plaid vest with an over the shoulder strap.    Bukarev-Padlo’s tortured delivery allows us to experience his dilemma as he questions himself and his fate.  Unasked for demands made on him prove too much.

Jenneviere Villegas plays a red-headed Mary Magdalene.  You hear the sweet, plaintive keening of unrequited love  in her voice as she sings, “I Don’t Know How to Love Him.”  Like David Peterson, Villegas, too, shows her vulnerability to and confusion about her feelings for Jesus.

Pilate is played by Ron McCan whose physical disability serves to enhance his role.  He pushes himself from his “throne”/electric chair, moves purposefully across the stage wearing a kind of crown and embroidered robe, singing, “Pilate’s Dream” in which he meets Jesus, singing words that tell of his  guilt for what he’s about to do to him, which he overcomes with his arrogance.

The entire production is remarkable, though some scenes stand out:  One lively scene is of Jesus destroying the temple where drugs are sold, and pimps tout their prostitutes, as the chorus sings, “Temple”;  another- gut-wrenching and dramatic-  is that of lepers costumed in off-white pants and extended sleeved shirts resembling straightjackets, crawling, pulling themselves across the stage, moaning as they confront Jesus, grabbing at him, beseeching him to heal them.  Overwhelmed, he tells them to “heal themselves.”

Act 1 ends with Judas, priests Annas (Kevin Hurlbut), and Caiaphas (David Richardson), and the chorus singing the rousing, “Damned for All Time/Blood Money,” and Judas accepts his 30 pieces of silver.

Priests seem always to be dressed in long black gowns.  Ralph Hoy gets around this  stereotype by outfitting them with multi-lensed eyewear that looks like something out of “The Matrix” (or an optometrist’s office), which are not only inventive, but extraordinary and effectively sinister.

Outstanding actors are David Richardson as  Caiaphas, the head priest.  Richardson intones in his basso profundo, singing with Annas the above number, and with other priests (Joey Alvarado, David Herrera, and Jack Landseadel) “This Jesus Must Die,” and more.   Pablo Soriano gives a believable performance as the wide-eyed, intimidated, burdened apostle, Peter, who denies Jesus in “Peter’s Denial” in a scene with Maid by the Fire (Elizabeth Castaneda), Mary, and old man, and a soldier.   Another is Spencer Peterson as Herod, playing the king as only Spencer Peterson can: as a heavily made up, top-hatted, flamboyant gay dude in tights and a huge brown leather cod-piece straight out of an early Roman comedy.  He dances, prances, and jumps around the cabaret-like set singing, “King Herod’s Song (Try it and See)” with the dancing girls, prostitutes and chorus.

After Judas’s suicide (Judas, Annas, Caiaphas, and the Chorus sing the dirge, “Judas ‘s Death”), he appares to Jesus as a vision in a tuxedo- jacket open revealing his bare chest- black bow tie, and red suspenders.  He, the Soul Girls, Dancers, and Angels dance and sing “Superstar.”    Brilliant!    The staging of Jesus’ crucifixion (“The Crucifixion,” Jesus, Mary, the ‘apostles), is beautiful.  Enhanced by Kelly’s lighting-  light beams fan out behind Jesus like searchlights,  he appears in silhouette, arms out-stretched.

Each actor, including priests, Herod, Pilate, and the apostles play more than one role.  Exceptions are Jesus, Judas, Mary Magdalene, and Caiaphas.   That said, each sprechstimme-singing  or singing actor is believable in his or her role.

One problem with a large cast is ensuring that everyone is invested in the story and its principles.    An audience is aware when this doesn’t happen; it feels it; something is off.  I didn’t sense this at all.  Each actor gives his or her all to make  “Jesus Christ Superstar” a success.  The singing and acting in this production is some of the best I’ve seen in a musical.

April 26-28 are its final performances, so  don’t miss it.

Diego Rivera Theatre on the City College of SF campus, Gennessee @ Judson, or Phelan and Judson. Go to City College of SF website, click on index, scroll down to  Theatre Arts Department current productions for more information.

 

 

Isaac’s Storm — Book Review

By Joe Cillo

Isaac’s Storm:  A Man, A Time, and the Deadliest Hurricane in History. 

By Eric Larson.  New York:  Vintage/Random House.  1999.  pp. 323.

 

 

This is a harrowing story of survival and death during the Galveston Hurricane of 1900.  The book bills it as the deadliest hurricane in history, however the hurricane of 1780, which struck the Western Caribbean during the American Revolution, and Hurricane Mitch of 1998, did cause greater loss of life.  But the Galveston Hurricane of 1900 is right up there among the most deadly with an estimated 8000-12,000 deaths. This book is not only a story of the Galveston Hurricane, but it is also a history of meteorology and hurricane forecasting, a history of the U.S. Weather Service, and a biography of Isaac Cline, the Weather Service’s agent in charge of the Galveston Bureau at the time of the hurricane.

The book is a magnificent accomplishment.  I truly admire it.  It has been scrupulously researched in original sources at the National Archives, the Library of Congress, and the Rosenberg Library of Galveston, many of which have not been touched since they were deposited.  There are detailed footnotes.  It is a gripping narrative with many sub-narratives that interweave, yet do not get in each other’s way.  The style is very readable and draws the reader in and takes hold of you.  What I especially liked was Larson’s ability to create a pervasive tone of ominous foreboding amidst the retelling of rather mundane occurrences.  People blithely went about their daily routine business in Galveston during the days leading up to the hurricane without a clue what was coming.  Small decisions were made that proved fateful.  Minor events, seemingly trivial, contained a hint of menace.  Of course, it is hindsight that enables one to make such a reconstruction.  But there is also the lingering question of whether greater attention had been paid to certain small indicators, might the catastrophe been mitigated?  No one had any concept of the magnitude of what was coming.  There had been storms in Galveston before.  People, including Isaac Cline, constructed their houses on stilts in anticipation of flooding from storms.  They thought they were well prepared.  The problem was they underestimated Nature and the massive power it can unleash.

Many of the lessons of this story will seem familiar and timeless.  The mercilessness and indifference of Nature to the fate of living things and civilization.  Nature truly does not care if we live or die.  We are not being punished, nor are we being cared for, by anything that occurs in Nature.

The power of denial.  There are a number of examples of this throughout the book, but I will single out two.  Isaac Cline observed an interesting phenomena during his first summer in San Angelo, Texas, of 1885 (before he was transferred to Galveston).  It was a long, hot summer on the Texas prairie.  The Concho river was dry and temperatures went as high as 140 degrees.

One evening in mid-August he was walking toward town along his usual route, crossing the footbridge over the riverbed, when he heard a roar from somewhere far upstream.  Not thunder.  The roar was continuous, and got louder.   He saw a carriage carrying a man and a two women descend into the riverbed at a point where wagons and horsemen often crossed.  An escarpment of water that Isaac estimated to be fifteen or twenty feet high appeared beyond the carriage.  Isaac began to run.  The water caught the carriage broadside and ripped it from the soil.  Isaac reached the other side of the riverbed just as the water surged past him, the carriage tumbling like a tree stump in a spring flood.  The wagon passed.  Rescue was impossible.

His heart racing, Isaac looked upstream.  Men had gathered and with their bare hands were plucking fish from the water.  Large fish.  As Isaac walked toward the men, he saw a fish two feet long drift slowly by.  Me moved closer.  The fish did nothing.  He reached for the fish.  It kept still.  Isaac thrust his hands into the water, and two things happened.  He caught the fish; he froze his hands.

It was August in Texas but water had abruptly filled the riverbed and this water was the temperature of a Tennessee creek in January, so cold it paralyzed fish.

But where had the water come from?  Isaac scanned the skies for the rolling black-wool cloud typically raised by blue northers, but saw nothing.

Days later, townsmen recovered the bodies of the carriage driver and his two female passengers.

And a week later, the mystery of the ice-water flood was resolved.

Visitors from the town of Ben Ficklin fifty miles up the Concho came to San Angelo and reported that a monstrous hailstorm had struck about ten days earlier, the day of the flood.  The storm discharged stones the size of ostrich eggs that killed hundreds of cattle and fell in such volume they filled erosion gulches and piled to depths of up to three feet on level ground.  The ice melted quickly.

For Isaac this was explanation enough.  The deadly flood was the downstream flow of flash-melted hail.  He wrote an article on the incident for the weather service’s Monthly Weather Review, edited by Cleveland Abbe.  To Isaac’s “surprise and chagrin,” Abbe rejected the article on grounds it was too far-fetched to be believed.  (pp. 61-2)

Isaac was annoyed at this rejection and went on to document other cases of massive hailstorms across the Great Plains that caused great destruction.  They are not by any means unprecedented.

Another case of denial is exhibited by the U.S. Weather Service’s handling of the storm in its forecasting.  It was a widespread belief among forecasters at the time that all hurricanes followed a curving path from the Caribbean through Florida and then northeast into the Atlantic.  They did not believe it was possible for a hurricane to proceed from Cuba, west toward Galveston — but that was exactly what this hurricane did.  Reports of the storm and forecasts were issued consistent with these false expectations, but contrary to facts on the ground.  The Cuban Weather Service, however, reported accurately on the storm and warned of its danger.  The U.S. Weather Service banned the Cubans from transmitting their reports over telegraph lines to the United States. They enlisted the help of Western Union in this effort.

Willis Moore, acting Secretary of Agriculture at that time, wrote a letter to General Thomas T. Eckert, president of Western Union .

The United States Weather Bureau in Cuba has been greatly annoyed by independent observatories securing a few scattered reports and then attempting to make weather predictions and issue hurricane warnings to the detriment of commerce and the embarrassment of the Government service. . .  I presume you have not the right to refuse to transmit such telegrams, but I would respectfully ask that they be not allowed any of the privileges accorded messages of this Bureau, and that they be not given precedence over other commercial messages. (p. 106)

The Cuban weather raised vigorous opposition to the ban, but they were suppressed.  After the storm, with Galveston in ruins, The Cuban Weather Service’s Julio Jover visited H.H.C. Dunwoody, head of the U.S. Weather Bureau in Cuba, and had a contentious discussion about hurricane prediction.  At one point Dunwoody told Jover

“a cyclone has just occurred in Galveston which no meteorologist predicted.”

Jover, incredulous, paused a moment.  He said, slowly as one might address the inmate of an asylum: “That cyclone is the same one which passed over Cuba.”

“No sir,”  Dunwoody snapped.  “It cannot be; no cyclone ever can move from Florida to Galveston.”  (p. 114)

Although Larson’s book is straightforward history, there are many parallels to contemporary events.  Larson does not draw them, which is to his credit, but it can readily be seen that the mentality and often the methods of bureaucrats and government leaders seem to have a timelessness that transcends historical contexts.

Governments and corporations find it extremely important to control the flow and quality of information about public events.  It is through the selective use of information (or misinformation) that public attitudes and can be shaped and behavior controlled.  It is also how credibility and authority are maintained.  We see this today in the government’s handling of the Boston bombings, 9/11, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Kennedy Assassination, the Lincoln Presidency, and above all in the so-called “War on Terror”, that phantasm of the imagination that has no beginning, no end, and no fixed enemy, except whom the government declares it to be.  It is the ultimate power grab because it does not admit contradiction by any “facts.”  Actually, the facts disappear.  Reality becomes what solely the government declares it to be.  This same pattern can be seen over a hundred years ago in the Galveston Hurricane.

The biggest elephant in this room of denial and dismissal of imminent catastrophe is climate change.  This, I think, gives this book special relevance to events occurring before our eyes today.  We often see today, in the media and in the government, people who refuse to accept, in the face of overwhelming evidence, that the earth’s climate is changing, that it is changing rapidly, that human activity is the cause of the change, and that the consequences are potentially devastating on a scale heretofore unimaginable.  It is very similar to the underestimation that the people of Galveston and the officials of the U.S. Weather Service made before the Galveston Hurricane.  People simply had no concept of the vast destructive potential of Nature and how quickly it could be visited upon them.  We are in that same state of impoverished imagination and blissful denial today before the specter of global warming.  There are some people who know and are trying to sound the warning.  But they are discounted and dismissed.  The scenarios of doom they paint are too fantastic to be credible.  Yet once these forces are unleashed, or rather, once they begin to break upon us, it will be too late and the outcome will be inevitable.

I once shared some of my concerns about this with a friend of mine, explaining to him that San Francisco draws most of its water from the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir in the Sierra Nevada mountains.  The pipeline from Hetch Hetchy to San Francisco crosses a number of major geological fault lines, but the concern I was sharing with him was that climate change may make our weather much drier and warmer.  If the Sierra snowpack were to disappear, and the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir were to dry up, where will that leave San Francisco for a water supply?  His response, “Well, I guess we’ll just have to drink Perrier.”

Bureaucratic infighting and turf wars impaired the Weather Service’s functioning and weather forecasting became politicized.  It is worth noting that an important motivation for the improvement in weather forecasting was the military.  Naval fleets were often sunk by storms, and being able to understand and predict weather was important to maintaining military strength and superiority.  President McKinley ordered the creation of the hurricane warning service in the Caribbean on the eve of the Spanish-American War.  “I am more afraid of a West Indian hurricane than I am of the entire Spanish Navy.”  (p. 74)

Once the storm began to break upon the city and people saw they were in real trouble, there were divisions between people over how to respond.  There were sharp differences among family members including Isaac Cline’s over whether to move to a presumably safer location or stay put.  These decisions were fateful.  Many families perished as a consequence of these decisions.  Larson points out an interesting gender divide. Men tended to stand pat and ride out the storm, where women wanted to flee.  Many of these were their last marital arguments.

Much of the book is taken up with dramatic anecdotes of survival and death.  But many larger issues of great interest are also discussed along the way.

One interesting small point that Larson only mentions in passing, but I find worth drawing attention to, is a description of a walk Dr. Samuel Young, Secretary of the Cotton Exchange made the night before the hurricane.

Ahead, Murdoch’s pier blazed with light.  The crests of incoming waves seemed nearly to touch the lamps suspended over the surf.  There would be no nude bathing tonight — unlike other nights, when as many as two hundred men would gather in the waves beyond the reach of the lamps and swim frog-naked in the warm water.  (p. 130)

Apparently, there was a vibrant homoerotic culture in Galveston around the turn of the century.  I wonder how common such gatherings were across the United States at that time, before the suppression of male-male sex became firmly established in the culture?

After the storm there were so many corpses that disposing of them became a major public health issue.  Cremation was a rare practice in 1900, but many bonfires were built across Galveston to burn the many dead bodies from all over the city.  There was racism.  Rumors were spread of black people defiling and robbing the bodies.  Black males were recruited at gunpoint to help load and dump bodies into the ocean for which they were paid in whiskey (p. 239).  But the bodies were not weighted enough and by the end of the day many of the bodies dumped into the ocean were washing back up on the beaches of Galveston.

Larson notes the sources of relief contributions for Galveston.  The State of New York gave the most at more than $93,000.  New Hampshire sent $1.

One of the final chapters details how the spin doctors went to work in the aftermath to influence how the media portrayed the storm to the public and the Weather Service’s handling of it.  A lot of it sounds very familiar.

[Willis] Moore continued to portray the bureau as having expertly forecast and tracked the storm, and credited in particular the West Indies Service. . .   Most U.S. newspapers, unaware of the nuances of the bureau’s performance and inclined in those days to be more accepting of official dogma, adopted Moore’s view.  (p. 252)

Which was in direct contradiction to the facts.

Isaac Cline lost his wife in the storm — arguably in consequence of a decision he made to remain in his house.  The subsequent lives of many of the participants are noted by Larson, which makes for satisfying closure.

Willis Moore wrote at the time “Galveston should take heart, as the chances are that not once in a thousand years would she be so terribly stricken.” (p.272)  But Galveston was hit by hurricanes in 1915, 1919, 1932, 1941, 1943, 1949, 1957, 1961, and 1983.

Toward the end of the twentieth century, meteorologists still considered Galveston one to the most likely targets for the next great hurricane disaster.  Unlike their peers in the administration of Willis Moore, they feared that the American public might be placing too much trust in their predictions.  People seemed to believe that technology had stripped hurricanes of their power to kill.  No hurricane expert endorsed this view.  None believed the days of mesoscale death were gone for good.  The more they studied hurricanes, the more they realized how little they knew of their origins and the forces that governed their travels.  There was talk that warming seas could produce hypercanes twice as powerful as the Galveston hurricane.  (p. 273)

This is the not so subtle message of this book for our time that goes beyond its being a historical narrative or a gripping adventure story.  The conditions created by the warming earth and the warming oceans will eventually bring storms upon us of a much greater destructive scale than we have ever experienced.  People of our time would do well to heed the lessons of the city of Galveston in not being too smug and arrogant against the monumental power of Nature, which can outstrip our imagination for sudden and ruthless destruction.  We like to believe that the world is a congenial place and meant to support our lives.  It does not have to be that way, and it can change in a very short time.  Reading the story of Galveston can help bring that message home for whatever good it might do, and Larson’s account is as powerful and effective a recounting as any that might be done.

 

Shivalingappa, Namasya — Dance Performance Review

By Joe Cillo

Shantala Shivalingappa

Namasya — Dance Performance

Herbst Theater, San Francisco

April 16, 2013

I didn’t care for this.  This was a solo performance of Indian dance in the Kuchipudi style, to Indian music.  The music was better than the dancing.  I couldn’t relate to it.  I found it wearisome and dull.  It lacked engagement.  It was solipsistic.  Some of it reminded me of those pantomime games where one person acts out a scenario and the rest of the group tries to guess what it is.  It was like she had something in her head, but I couldn’t seem to connect with what it was.

She started out on her back toward the rear of the stage making painfully slow movements as if she were getting up in the morning very, very slowly — a decidedly downbeat way to start.  I often get up like that myself first thing in the morning, but it is not interesting to watch, and I would never have the temerity to perform it on stage and expect people to be interested in it.

Most of this performance was slow and static, decidedly undramatic and even disengaged.  For a couple of segments she left the stage allowing screens came down and a video of her dancing in costume appeared on the screen.  It was a video I would never watch were it to be given to me.  It was totally uninteresting.  I couldn’t understand why this was presented in a video.  Was she too lazy to just go out there and do it herself?  I think it emphasized her unwillingness to make full contact with the audience, which seemed to be a theme of this performance.

A further segment underlined this.  It was done mostly on her knees with her back to the audience making movements with her arms and torso.  When her back was not to the audience, she hid her face in her arms.  It was as if she were avoiding making contact with the audience, refusing to look at them.  I got the same feeling from it that I have had sometimes pursuing a woman I am interested in and she is making no response.  Not a negative response, but no response.  As if her back is to me and she is ignoring me, totally stonewalling, not willing to be engaged or communicative in any way whatsoever.   Not exactly the way for a woman to get a good review from me, and that was how I felt during much of this performance.

I made up my mind as I was sitting there not to even review this show.  I don’t like to write this kind of a review.  I like young women and I try to encourage them, but I started getting annoyed as it dragged on.  This woman is unprepared to be doing this kind of a performance, and San Francisco Performances did not do her a favor presenting her in a venue for which she is not artistically ready. Someone has to tell her.  A reviewer also has a responsibility to inform the public what they are in for when they take time and spend money to attend a performance.  Why should I keep silent to protect a poor performer who is out there soliciting paying audiences?

When you go out on a stage and do a solo performance: an hour or more of nothing but you, it has to be strong, and you have to have an imposing presence that can connect with the audience and sustain their attention.  People are paying money and spending their time to view this.  It has to have something to offer, something to engage them, stimulate them, connect with them on some level or other.  You can’t just bore them to death and expect them to like it.  You take a big risk when you do a show like this as a solo performer.  If people don’t like it, it all comes down on you.  You’re not part of a group that shares responsibility and offers support.  Shivalingappa does not have the kind of presence and artistic strength necessary to pull this off.  This performance was not substantial.  It was tedious.  She is way out of her league.  She should be dancing in a troupe learning her craft.

Maybe I am spoiled.  I just saw the San Francisco Ballet the other night and those dancers are first rate.  Every single one of them is masterful with a commanding presence that you can feel all the way up to the top of the balcony.  Shivalingappa is not anywhere near that caliber and certainly not of a stature to be doing a solo show on her own.  But it was mercifully short.  That was the best part.  Some serious rethinking need to be done with this one.  I’m sorry, but I cannot recommend this.