Skip to main content
Category

Joe Cillo

Joe
Cillo

LOVE ME LOVE MY DOG

By Joe Cillo

MY FAMILY, MY DOG

There is no psychiatrist in the world
Like a puppy licking your face.
Ben Williams

When Daphne sits on my lap, my blood pressure drops 30 points.  Why bother with Lipitor?  Daphne is not dispensed to me by a pharmacist although she is definitely good medicine. She is a five-pound Chihuahua with blue eyes and an attitude.  However, when she sits on MY lap, her blood pressure elevates…and no wonder.  She is at work; she is doing her job.

Daphne’s mother dresses her in high fashion: ruffled skirts with matching knickers and booties, a warm hoodie to wear when she and her mum are on the slopes and a bright strawberry vest to welcome spring.

Daphne has a stubborn anal gland that does not process her food properly and her mother has spent hundreds, nay, thousands of pounds on Daphne’s alimentary canal, to no avail.  At last, her mother resorted to holistic remedies and feeds Daphne a nightly soupcon of pumpkin and rice to soothe her aching bottom.

Daphne is well aware of her privileged position in the family.  She dines with us at our table.  We do not consider her germs as lethal as those of her former daddy or all her cousins…some with four legs, some with only two.   We all know her preferences and we do our best to keep her as happy as her presence makes us.  She does not like the rain; she considers walking on the other end of a leash demeaning; she loves to watch movies and never so much as woofs lest she disturb the others watching with her.  We know that Daphne is absorbing the action on the screen because she often weeps at a sad ending, and she still wails when she remembers what happened to poor Jackie Robinson.

We who know and love Daphne think she is unique but it appears that she is no different than any other dog in any other home anywhere in the world.  One look at her stimulates human oxytocin, a bonding hormone that increases our trust and attachment to those close to us and makes us suspicious of strangers.  The fact is that the longer Daphne stares at me, the more I love her and want to shoot that yapping little dachshund next door. This explains why we think nothing of spending half our wages on Daphne’s attire, rushing her to a doctor at the slightest hint that she is not in perfect health even as we ignore our own coughs, tummy spasms and exploding lungs. She is far more than part of our family…she is the very adhesive that keeps us together. For, although we all  have spats with one another over toilet seats left up or down, toothpaste tubes squeezed wrong and dishes unwashed, we all unite in our love for Daphne.  It is she who keeps us human.

Dogs are miracles with paws.
Susan Kennedy

SIDEBAR ONE:

Percy is a Corgi without a tail.  He stares at me with the same intensity Jewish men look at me.  You know: something is missing and he doesn’t remember how he lost it.  The interesting thing is that the more Percy stares at me, the more I adore him.  I cannot say the same for Jewish men.

SIDEBAR TWO:

Dorothy is a shih’ Tzu with a raging metabolism. When she sits on your lap, you can feel the heat of her tiny little body warm you right to your toes. When her blood pumps through her veins and burns her calories you will swear the house is on fire.  Dorothy’s mother says she has saved 1000 pounds a year on heating bills and her only cost is dog food.  That, after all, is Dorothy’s fuel and it is a lot cheaper than petrol.

“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.

 

 

Renoir — Film Review

By Joe Cillo

Renoir

Directed by Gilles Bourdos

 

 

This is an outstanding dramatization of the French painter Pierre-August Renoir (1841-1919) (Michel Bouquet) in his later years.  (In French with subtitles.)  It takes place in 1915 during the First World War.  At the time Renoir lived on a farm in Cagnes near the Mediterranean coast above Nice.  He seems to have had an entourage of women around him who took care of the household and attended to him.  The film never explained exactly who they were or what their relationships were to him.  Some of them seem to have been former models.  His wife of 25 years, Aline, died prior to the time of the film, which would have been recently.  He had three sons with Aline, two of whom figure prominently in the film, Jean (Vincent Rottiers), the older, and Claude (Thomas Doret), the younger.

The film begins with the arrival of Andree Heuschling (Christa Theret), a.k.a. Catherine Hessling, who becomes his last model and the future wife of his son, Jean.  Born in 1900, she would have been fifteen at the time of this film, although in the film she appears to be somewhat older, probably in her early 20s.   Renoir’s son, Claude, whom she encounters at the outset, in actuality was only a year younger, although in the film he appears to be at least ten years her junior.

Theret is gorgeous and she spends a good part of her time in this film naked or nearly so, which is a huge plus.  Her naked body helps a great deal to maintain interest in this somewhat slow moving domestic film.  There isn’t a lot of action in this film.  It is domestic drama, but it is interesting and has substance.  The characters are intriguing and their circumstance dealing with the aging patriarch against the backdrop of the horrendous First World War give the film a strong engagement.

The center of gravity of the film is not really Renoir, who mostly sits and paints throughout the film, and sometimes talks — and what he has to say is always interesting — but rather, the romance that develops between the older son, Jean, and Andree.   I’ll let you watch the film to see how that goes, but it is very well done and both characters are strong and captivating, particularly Andree.

What I want to talk about are some of the comments Renoir made on painting and art.  Renoir’s paintings, particularly in his later years, are warm, colorful, and his subject matter tends to be benign:  domestic scenes, landscapes, portraits, and nude women.  His colors are strong, but tend to be pastel, softening contrast and shapes.  He didn’t use black very much.  He felt that viewing a painting should be an enjoyable encounter, reflecting positive, uplifting themes.  It wasn’t that he was unfamiliar with the darker side of life, but he did not wish to portray it.  And this is the point.  A painting, or a work of art more generally, reflects the inner reality, and especially the values, of the artist who created it.  The choice of subject matter and the way it is portrayed say a lot about who the artist is as a person and what he finds most important and valuable in life.  It takes considerable time, sustained attention, and skill to create a work of art.  What you choose as a subject matter upon which to spend that time, attention, and skill is not arbitrary.  An artist chooses to depict what he feels is interesting and important to share with others.  When you view a work of art, you are immersing yourself in the mindset and world view of another person.  You are allowing your attention to be guided by the interest and outlook of another person.  He may be a good person or a bad person.   His outlook may be positive and constructive, or negative, hostile, and biased.  But it is highly personal, individualized, and idiosyncratic.  This is the reason why art and artists often run afoul of prevailing morays and attitudes of their societies.  If they make political statements, they may get into trouble with the authorities.

Art, at least in our western tradition of individual creators, is a forum that lifts up the inner world of particular persons for public view.  In contrast to say, commercial art, which does not do this, or does it to a greatly circumscribed extent.  The operating values in commercial art are to sell a product, promote a name, or create an image associated with a brand or company.  The artist who is commissioned to do such work has limited, if any, choice over the subject matter or how it is to be portrayed.  The artist becomes something of a technician, executing work with a predefined object.  If he is skilled and imaginative, he may have some influence over the final depiction, but the work does not come from his own initiative, his inner need to share of himself.  He is doing the work in the service of an agenda that has been brought to him by someone else.  In the Middle Ages, when life and art was dominated by the church, religious themes were the norm in art.  Individual artists found ways to express themselves within that context, but radical departures from this prevailing mindset were not tolerated and simply had no venue.  The names of artists who created artworks in ancient times were not recorded.  The individual was not important and the individual’s perspective was not to be emphasized in the public forum of art.  Art’s role was to reflect the values of society as a whole, or at least the dominant class within it.

Modern art that you see in museums and galleries today, celebrates highly individualized, idiosyncratic perspectives.  If you contrast the paintings of women by Renoir, and say, Picasso, you see very different attitudes toward women and how they are portrayed.  Renoir saw women as beautiful and sensual, somewhat idealized, perhaps, but women are exalted in his paintings.  They are set in congenial circumstances in warm, vibrant colors.  You see their faces with expressions reflecting the mood and personality of the woman.  Picasso’s women, by contrast, are distorted, grotesque, their faces blank, cold, expressionless.  There is nothing beautiful or inviting about them.  Many of them are frankly hideous.  Certainly there is no idealization.  Neither is more “real” than the other.  The point is that artists depict the world, not as it is, but as they need to see it.  These needs are largely unconscious and are shaped by early experiences going back to the beginnings of their lives.  What you see in art is an interpretation, not “reality”.  When you look at a work of art, you are seeing a selective view of the world the way the artist needs to see it and chooses to share it.  So it is very personal.  Art is a way of connecting with other people on the level of the inner self through selective symbolic communication.  It is inherently limited, but on the other hand, it exposes one to aspects of another person not readily available, and can thus expand one’s awareness of the external world, the inner world of another, and awaken unexplored aspects of oneself.

The film is not so preoccupied with this philosophical topic of the nature of art — which might be a relief to you.  It emphasizes, rather, the romance between the young lovers, which is intriguing and spirited.  It is well crafted and well acted.  Not an action packed film.  You have to wear your thinking cap for this one, if you have one.  It does offer a convincing picture of Renoir in his later years, and particularly the inspiration he derived from attractive young women.  Renoir seems to have used his wealth to isolate himself from the world in an idyllic landscape surrounded by beautiful, attentive women.  (I would do the same thing, if I had the money.)  This was a cause for some tension between himself and his older son, Jean, who had been a soldier at the front.  Wounded in battle, he felt the pull of responsibility to his comrades and the nation, choosing to reenlist and go back to the war, against the strong opposition of Andree and his father.  Renoir senior sat out the war painting naked girls.  His warm, sensual, inviting paintings didn’t seem to sit so well with Jean, who had seen action at the front, which gave him a very different perspective on life from what his father portrayed.  Renoir painted until the very end of his life in 1919.  He was still painting on the day he died.  The film is an excellent introduction to his life and work.

Program 7 — San Francisco Ballet Performance

By Joe Cillo

Program 7 — San Francisco Ballet Performance

April 13, 2013

 

 

There were three separate ballets on Program 7.  The first was called Criss-Cross, choreographed by Helgi Thomasson.  This is a celebration of beauty and grace, superbly performed by the San Francisco Ballet dancers.  It is lively and energetic.  The first section is done against the music of Domenico Scarlatti, arranged by Charles Avison, and the latter part is done to the music of Arnold Schoenberg, taking off on George Frederic Handel.  You don’t have to think too much for this one.  It is visually interesting and the mood is upbeat.  The highlight for me were the two male-female duets.  The first was beautifully romantic and elegantly performed.  The second one in the latter half of the performance was more somber, almost languid.  The choreographer seemed to be listening to the music when he composed this.  The dance was well suited to the musical score, which is something I like to see.  It is a solid, enjoyable, well-executed performance that does not challenge too much.

The second ballet was Francesca da Rimini, choreographed by Yuri Possokhov.  This was my favorite of the three.  The set, lighting, special effects, costumes and choreography are interesting and imaginative.  The dancing fits well with the music, which gives a feeling of solidity and stability.  This one is supposed to have a minimal story line, although this staging is not concerned over much with telling a story.  It is actually dominated by a duet which is done to powerful effect.  It contrasts with the duets in the previous ballet in that this duet is much less romantic.  It is sensual, even lurid.  One does not get any sense of an illicit affair in this performance, which is the original story line.  Supposedly Francesca falls in love with Paolo, the younger brother of her husband, Gianciotto, who is supposed to be ugly and crippled.  The tall, robust dancer who plays Gianciotto, Vito Mazzeo, doesn’t exactly fit that description.  He does discover the lovers and murders them, true to the original script, but then Possokhov gives it a twist, which I think is a great improvement.  Instead of the adulterous couple being consigned to Hell, as in Dante’s Inferno, Gianciotto, the jealous murderer is dragged off to Hell.  I like Possokhov’s conception better and congratulate him on his modification of the story.

The Symphony in Three Movements by Igor Stravinsky rounds out the program.  It is choreographed by George Balanchine.  It is imaginatively done, with lots of visual activity and interesting configurations that blend and morph in interesting ways.  This is one where the dance does not well reflect the mood and temper of the underlying music.  There is a lot of distress in this music, but the choreography seems oblivious to it.  The choreographer seemed to have his own agenda and he wasn’t going to let the music get in the way of it.   The dancing is generally more positive and energetic than the music.  This one is interesting to watch.  It has complexity and many different elements that work together smoothly.  It is well thought out from the point of view of the choreography, but it was clearly not conceived from the music as the starting point.  I had the sense that the dancers like doing this one.  I could feel a vigor and enthusiasm from them that seemed inspired by the work itself.  This seems to be one they would choose to do themselves.

Generally an enjoyable, stimulating performance with lots of visual interest, imaginative staging, good positive energy and first rate dancing by the San Francisco Ballet dancers.

Glitz, glitter and song at The Hypnodrome

By Joe Cillo

Lynn Ruth [rating:4] (4/5 stars)

The Thrill Peddlers present….
TINSEL TARTS IN A HOT COMA
Music and lyrics: Scrumbly Koldewyn
Book: Sweet Pam” Tent
Directed by Russell Blackwood

“The Cockettes were basically complete sexual anarchy
Which is always a good thing.
John Waters

“The Cockettes were the first hippie drag queens,” said filmmaker John Waters,  “Insane hippie drag queens on and off the stage.”  And that sentence sums up that outrageous and delightful group of wild, flamboyant hippies, transsexuals, gays and rebels that managed to destroy all our sacred cows on and off the stage.  They created a series of drug infused ostentatious musical shows so camp only the sub-culture in San Francisco could understand them.  Their musicals were disorganized and wild, filled with glitter and nudity, mad and maddening yet irresistible to anyone ready to accept the unacceptable.

When they brought the original production of “Tinsel Tarts in a Hot Coma” to New York In 1971, the establishment simply could not handle their “in your face” exuberance. It was critic Lillian Roxon who realized that, inexperienced, chaotic and rough as they were, the group blazed a trail for a cultural evolution we are experiencing today “Their influence will be felt years from now,” she said. “Every time you see too much glitter or a rhinestone out-of-place, you (will) know it’s because of the Cockettes.”

Russell Blackwood, director of the Thrill Peddlers fell in love with the Cockette spirit and in 2009 he re-invented the Cockette production Pearls Over Shanghai  and followed it with Vice Palace.  Now, we have his re-imagining of  Tinsel Tarts In A Hot Coma the 1971 musical originally performed by The Cockettes at The Palace Theatre in San Francisco.

Blackwood’s interpretation of that production is on stage now at the Hypnodrome theatre and if you like splashy costume, great energy and not much plot, this production is your cup of tea.  Three of the original Cockettes are in this version of the musical that blossomed in San Francisco and died in New York.   Two of them, Scrumbly Koldewyn and Pam Tent also rewrote the book and added 18 songs from the original four-page outline used in that first production.  For this reviewer, Scrumbly Koldewyn is worth hearing and seeing anytime he takes to the stage.  His musical talent is beyond words, so original and exciting are his compositions; so thrilling his keyboard technique. Pam Tent steals the show in a parody of Hedda Hopper and no one can resist her.

The energy and enthusiasm of the cast is infectious and everyone who sees the show cannot help but have a wonderful time.  This production is so much more than a musical,  It is a happening and great fun from the opening number Ain’t We Deluxe to the spirited finale loaded with flashing breasts, swinging dicks, glittering gams and feathers, Hades Lowdown.

The question is: Are we so jaded by all that has gone before that the Cockette spirit is just a bit too over the top for today’s audiences?  “It’s nothing but a high school musical,” said one member of the audience. “All the performers put out lots of effort and enthusiasm, and the songs were clever….but  I didn’t see any reason for the nudity in the finale. I’m hardly a prude but it just seemed out of place.”

The truth is naked bodies aren’t that shocking anymore and too much glitter and glitz is boring.  We have all been there, done that and seen it so many times before.  That said; if you want a fun evening that does nothing to enrich you but everything to tickle your funny bone, don’t miss this fast-moving, melodic farce.  Tinsel Tarts in a Hot Coma is a production you’ll not soon forget: more colorful than a rainbow, and as delightful as a surfeit of ice cream and cake.

The sixties are gone; dope will never be as cheap
Sex never as free and rock & roll never as great.
Abbie Hoffman

TINSEL TARTS continues through June 1, 2012
Thursday-Saturday @ 8pm
The Hypnodrome Theatre 575 Tenth Street, SF
Tickets: brownpapertickets.com or 800 838 3006
Info: thrillpeddlers.com 415 377 4204

Nudity is no longer PC

By Joe Cillo

NAKED IS AS NAKED DOES

The male body is hairy and lumpy
And should not be seen by the light of day
Richard Roeper

For Shame

Americans do not mind seeing people murdered on their television screen and they love watching heads flying and limbs severed at the movies.  They like the rat-a-tat-tat of gunfire, bodies strewn across the pavement and little children crying for their lost mummies and daddies.   The more violence the better.  That is the American way.

The truth is that violence and tragedy make great entertainment.  So does pornography.  Americans actually prefer to watch lust happening even more than they like doing it. What a thrill to see a man and women tearing each other’s genitals to pieces or whipping and chaining each other for the sheer pleasure of hearing them scream.  Porn is almost as popular in America as violence.  We watch both every day and love it all.

But let some poor schnook walk outside to get the newspaper in the altogether and he ignites public outrage. “It offends me to see anyone that way,” said one insulted observer. “It is disgusting.”

That is why San Francisco decided to compromise its image of freedom of expression and tolerance of the odd-ball and ban public nudity from its streets.  No more can raunchy old men spread a towel on a stone bench and sun themselves in the Castro district.  No more, can its citizens strip to the flesh to bathe in the afternoon sun.  San Francisco now supports the theory that our bodies are so hideous they must be concealed in public.  No matter, that liberated women, forward thinking men and eating disorder specialists are trying to make us comfy with our diverse shapes and sizes.  In San Francisco, it is pc to be ashamed.

Now, it seems that the Japanese, too are offended by nudity, but they have taken it one step further.  They do not want to see representations of the human body, much less the real thing. Michelangelo’s David  was presented to the town of Okuizumo and the inhabitants ran for cover.  “It’s frightening the children and worrying the adults with its nakedness,” said one of the town’s bigwigs.

I can only assume that they have also stripped their museums of reproductions of Van Gogh’s NUDE WOMAN ON A BED or Renoir’s AFER BATHING not to mention Whistler’s shocking NUDE GIRL WITH A BOWL.

Obviously, the very sight of a naked body horrifies the more sensitive among us.   It is difficult to understand why we think the sight of a penis or a breast will frighten our children more than the sight of shattered limbs and battered heads. Will our innocent youth smash the bathroom mirror when one day they see those very banned organs protruding from their own bodies?

The truth is that in America our bodies are considered repulsive and offensive unless we film them and flaunt them on a screen.  The only answer to this dilemma is to cover every baby at birth with ornamental tattoos so that as they mature, no one will recognize the new growth.  And everyone will be amazed when it rises to an occasion.

 

 

I don’t even like to be naked
In front of myself!
Camryn Manheim

Marin Theatre has another winner

By Joe Cillo

MARIN THEATRE COMPANY PRESENTS
THE WHIPPING MAN
by Matthew Lopez
Directed by Jasson Minadakis
Starring L. Peter Callender, Nicholas Pelczar and Tobie Windham

The people made worse off by slavery
Were those who were enslaved.
Thomas Sowell

Marin Theatre consistently gives us exceptional productions and Jasson Minadakis is without equal as a director.  Any production he touches becomes thought provoking, meaningful theater at its best. THE WHIPPING MAN is no exception.  “Set a week after the fall of Richmond at the end of the Civil War and spanning the date of President Abraham Lincoln’s assassination, THE WHIPPING MAN explores a moment in our history when everything changed and anything seemed, and perhaps actually was, possible,” says Minadakis.  “Matthew explores how faith is one of the strongest ways to build family and community and to honor history…..….Faith in ourselves, our family and friends, our community or a divine power is the light that parts the darkness.”

The faith in this play is Judaism.  When the Southern Aristocracy owned slaves, those people became a part of their family.  Although they were possessions, they were still expected to follow the moral constructs of the people who owned them.   Simon (L. Peter Callender) and John (Tobie Windham) are Jewish. They belonged to Caleb’s (Nicholas Pelczar) family.  The play opens in Caleb’s now almost destroyed home in Richmond, Virginia in 1865 on a Friday night during the Jewish Passover.  It is important to understand the Jewish humanistic philosophy when you watch this play because it colors each characters reaction to one another.  Jewish law forbids unethical treatment of slaves and encourages owners to make them part of the family.  They were forbidden to physically abuse their slaves or to sell them to harsh masters.

And yet, these people were property and no matter how well meaning the master was, there were moments when he fell from grace.  In this play Caleb’s father who was portrayed as a kind, humane man beat both Simon and John, and violated Simon’s wife.  Caleb was overbearing and cruel to John even though the two grew up together as brothers.  As Simon explains, ”You did it because you could.”

Caleb disillusioned by the cruelty and bloodshed of the war has abandoned his faith. “I stopped believing.  It’s as simple as that,” he tells Simon.  And Simon who still believes there is a higher power to protect them all says, “God doesn’t like fair weather friends.  “  He continues, ”You don’t lose your faith by stopping believing; you lose your faith by not asking questions.”

As the play develops, we are asked to question where justice begins and why men abandon their sense of humanity when they have power over another.  The acting in this play is nothing short of amazing.  L Peter Callender is a supreme artist and anyone who has the privilege of seeing him perform on stage knows he is unforgettable in any part he plays.  He outdoes himself in this play.  He carries the action and he is breathtaking every moment he is on that stage.  Tobie Windham is perfect as the rebellious angry brother and Caleb is right on the mark as the disillusioned son of a Jewish plantation owner who finally sees how little help his faith was to him when faced with impossible choices not just on the battlefield but in a home where people were subjugated to humiliation because they were owned.

The production is a masterpiece on every level and we have Jasson Minadakis to thank for that. He is both the director of this fine and memorable piece of theater and artistic director of the theater.  One can wax eloquent about the set, the lighting and the action…but there are no words to substitute seeing the play for yourself.  It is far more that a work of fiction on a stage.  It is a reflection of what life means and how we can all try to live it with honor and dignity.

Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery,
I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN

THE WHIPPING MAN continues until April 21, 2013
Marin Theatre Company
397 Miller Avenue
Mill Valley, CA 94941
415 388 5208
www.marintheatre.org

A BEAUTIFUL PIECE OF THEATER AT HILLBARN

By Joe Cillo

Lynn Ruth [rating:5] (5/5 stars)

HILLBARN THEATRE PRESENTS…..

JOHN & JEN
Music by Andrew Lippa; Lyrics Tom Greenwald
Directed by Jay Manley
Starring Alicia Teeter and William Giammona

Our brothers and sisters are there with us
From the dawn of our personal stories
To the inevitable dusk.
Susan Scarf Merrell

Cast aside your preconceived notions about what a musical is before you come to this beautifully staged and artistically produced play.  Jay Manley has taken a weak text and poorly developed plot and transformed it into a theatrical work of art. jon & jen is the musical story of a sister and brother who protect and love each other, yet are foiled by their own inadequacies.  Jen is the older sister determined to protect her baby brother from their dysfunctional parents.  Sadly, because she is only a child, she cannot keep him from absorbing their irrational behavior and warped values.  She can only give her brother her unconditional love and support.  John, determined to defy his sister and get his father’s approval enlists in the army and is killed.  When Jen marries, she names her baby after her lost brother and when her own marriage falls apart, she smothers her son with love and protection just as she did her brother.

It is very difficult to create believable characters when the only vehicle is song.  Andrew Lippa’s music and Tom Greenwald’s lyrics are lovely and deep but alone they cannot draw the depth of character we need to fully understand and relate to this poignant story.

Alicia Teeter is perfectly cast in her role as Jen.  She manages to touch our hearts with every note she sings and with every nuance of expression. She is a fine actress to the core.   Andrew Lippa has a much more challenging job.  He must portray a baby and grow up into a man in both acts.  He carries it off very well…but the audience must take a leap of faith to believe in the validity of his character.

And that is where Jay Manley’s genius shines through.  By choreographing the movements of these two fine performers and creating costume changes that tell as much of the story as the libretto itself, he carries the story through to its lovely resolution when the two stars sing the unforgettable Every Goodbye Is Hello.  Robert Broadfoot has outdone himself in designing the set…it is simple and yet perfect for action that spans 42 years. He has created four different levels to indicate the many changes of time and place on the spacious open stage at Hillbarn.

“Ultimately this musical play is about familial love, loss, grief, forgiveness of others and self, and most important, moving on – learning how to let go and forge a way forward,” says Manley.  “Who has not been touched by these universal tests?”

This is not a play for everyone.  It is deep and disturbing and will touch your heart, if you let it.  Kudos to Hillbarn for including it in their season.  jon and jen is a theatrical masterpiece.

IF YOU GO:

JON & JEN CONTINUES THROUGH APRIL 7, 2013

Ticket Flash Sale! $28 tickets to any remaining shows of “john & jen” Enter promo code “HBFLASH” when buying online and instantly save. MORE INFORMATION AT hillbarntheatre.org or 650 349 6411

HILLBARN THEATRE is located at 1285 Hillsdale Blvd. in Foster City.