Skip to main content
Category

Joe Cillo

Joe
Cillo

BUMPING AND GRINDING AT A CERTAIN AGE

By Joe Cillo

LOVING MY IMAGE

 

There is nothing more rare, nor more beautiful,

Than a woman being unapologetically herself;

Comfortable in her perfect imperfection.”

Steve Maraboli

I became conscious of my body when I was 16 and I hated it.  This was 1946 when the image was a flat tummy and big breasts.  The goal was the “sweater girl” look:  a slender, pegged skirt with a slit so you could walk and a filled tight sweater.  I was flat- chested, with tiny hips and a bloated tummy that made my shape look more like a Shmoo than Marilyn Monroe.

 

Through the years, as fashions changed and my body modified, I never seemed able to diet it down or corset it into the shape I saw in magazine centerfolds.  I knew instinctively that if I wanted to catch a man (and in those days, we all wanted to do that) I would have to look tempting enough to excite him.  No man with a decent level of testosterone would look twice at a woman shaped like a tube with over-sized feet that turned out when she walked.   I was convinced that my poor social life was the result of high intelligence and a lousy figure.

 

It never occurred to me that the first step to becoming a beauty is to love who you are.  I saw homely, dumpy, fashion-less girls snap up all the eligible men and I never understood how they did it.  Even I, with my sallow coloring and wispy hair looked better than they did.  Besides I didn’t wear glasses and my complexion was clear.

 

Years passed and my body parts reshaped themselves with each decade, but no matter what happened to them, I hated the look I had.  For as long as I can remember, I have either worn baggy pants and extra large  shirts, or long loose dresses, starting with the waist-less shifts in the fifties to the loose flowing gowns I have adopted since I came to California in the eighties.  I have always been thankful for clothes that conceal and it never occurred to me to lower my turtle neck to anything décolleté.

 

About 6 years ago, I added a mock strip tease to my comedy act and for the first time in my life, I exposed my legs and my collar bone.  The costume I wore was hardly salacious (I had given that up years ago) but it certainly revealed a lot more of me than had ever been exposed before.  I pranced and posed through the next few years, never exposing more, but adding new and more daring costumes until bit by bit, I devised the blinking tit routine which flashed as I sang and was disconcerting, funny and not very provocative at all.

And then two years ago, I started doing my songs in real burlesque shows.  I would go into the dressing room and watch women of every size and shape get themselves into gorgeous and revealing costumes and instead of dressing behind a screen (as I had done for a minimum of seventy years) I was undressing in a room filled with naked men and women…..(boys do burlesque too) and no one looked askance at me or at each other.  In fact, we all helped one another hook, pin and embellish our costumes ready for the stage.

I noticed that the women who were the best performers did not necessarily conform to any “look” but they all shared a wonderfully confident attitude and it was then I realized what those homely girls in the forties had that I didn’t have.  They loved who they were.  They never thought twice about the circumference of their waists or the size of their brassiere.  Their concern was how to show off what they had…and how to put it to the best and most pleasurable use.

I think that is wonderful.  I am past worrying about pleasurable use but I am certainly interested in using what I have to the best advantage.  I LIKE being saucy and even sexy…..no I LOVE it….and I love the body I have to do it with.  Both hips are mine, the knees bend, the boobs are saggy but they can twirl….sort of.  But who cares?  I am the only me I can be and I am unique. That is plenty good enough for me.

 

You are imperfect, permanently and inevitably flawed.

And you are beautiful.

Amy Bloom

EVERYONE KNOWS EVERYTHING ABOUT YOU

By Joe Cillo

WHO IS WATCHING YOU ?

Relying on the government to protect your privacy is like
asking a peeping tom to install your window blinds.
John Perry Barlow

You decide to buy a book about surfing and find just want you want on bargains.com.  You type in your credit card details and send them off to the company which has assured you that your information is safe with them and goes nowhere but to their secure site. You have every right to believe that the only one who is aware of that number (which is a direct link to your checking account) is an impersonal machine that automatically checks to see if your card is valid.  Two months later, you order something else from the site and discover your card is on file.  How did that happen? What right have they to save it?  Worse: can someone who works there use your details for their own purposes?

Ah, but the real surprise is that your card details are not only on file with Bargain.com but with several hundred other sites with ads on Google.  AND when you send an e mail mentioning surfing, you get twenty ads alongside your e mail telling you that they have spiffy surfboards at half the price you paid at bargain.com.  As you look down the list of vendors, you also find new places to surf, hotels to stay at and places to eat especially for surfers.  How did Google know you surfed?  You haven’t even discussed it with your mother.

You go to another site to look up books on calligraphy and when you start to type in your contact details to purchase the book you want, you discover that somehow, this omniscient site recognizes you as soon as you type the first letter of your name.  How did that happen?  You were never interested in calligraphy until an hour ago.

“There are hundreds of web-based email services that appear to offer anonymity. Few really do. These include names such as Hotmail, Yahoo, Excite and many more that could be listed. In each of these cases, the user is allowed to create a personal username that he uses for his messages. Unfortunately, through sign-up procedures and logging, it is amazingly simple to determine your ISP, and even your true identity, when you use these services,” says A. Brown on www.e/cheat.com.

At first, all this seems to heighten the convenience of shopping or searching on line.  We tend to forget that ordinary people are entitled to privacy. Refusing to reveal the amount of money we have, where it is deposited and the special interests we have unpublished does not make us terrorists.  (Although the way this information is bandied about certainly does make us terrorized.)

 

Mike Butcher explains this practice of real time web disclosure:  “The idea behind a real-time Web is to create technology that doesn’t require an Internet user to actively seek out something they’re interested in. That could mean anything from getting pinged when an article about your favourite sports team is posted to an alert when you’re mentioned in someone’s blog.”

There is something decidedly uncomfortable about the world knowing you like surfing or are interested in pursuing calligraphy…but it is a lot MORE disturbing if your partner finds out you have just joined e harmony to see if someone more exciting awaits or that you like to watch porn while he is selling computers at Frye’s. That is all YOUR business,…or is it?

A Brown has more to say on the subject: “There are more reasons to want to protect your privacy than can be named. The important principal is that you have a right to privacy as long as that right is used within the bounds of the law.  Seeking privacy should not make you feel guilty. Privacy should be expected, and demanded. The reasons might be as simple as preserving your right to express unpopular opinions without being subjected to persecution, or as serious as communicating sensitive business information, revealing credit card numbers, legal discussions with your accountant, or hiding your true identity from a secret government. Regardless of your reasons, privacy is your right. Contrary to what some governing bodies might want the public to believe, not all those concerned with security and privacy are hackers or terrorists.”

The fact that A Brown is just another computer user who has made these observations on a non-technical site is even more unsettling.  The “experts” in computer technology probably know how to find out your eating habits, your sex addictions and your regularity….Why do they care?  Perhaps it is to use the information to tempt you to buy a product.  It could be to garner statistics on the potential success of a new product.  Or it could be to harass you and accuse you of something they think you might do…such as drug dealing or behaviour that “disturbs the peace.”

Facebook says, ‘Privacy is theft,’ because they’re selling
your lack of privacy to the advertisers who might show up one day
Jaron Lanier

YOU HAVE ARRIVED!!!!

By Joe Cillo

SMILE! YOU’RE ON CAMERA

Chapter one:  I am born

David Copperfield

The “in” thing these days is to turn baby’s birth into a photo shoot.  I cannot think of anything more horrifying for the mother, more humiliating for the baby and more American for the revenue it creates.

 

Americans just love money.  If we can charge for it, we are there.  It all began with dog walking…why take out someone’s puppy for fun when you can get them to pay for it?  If Fido (who frankly doesn’t give a tinker’s damn if you are in the room as long as he has his food and a place to poop) might get lonesome while you are out earning his kibble, why not pay five times as much as his daily scoop to have some idiot who cannot earn a living in an office drag the pooch to the park.

 

Then there are the cat hotels.  Why should your cat who obviously has good taste…he hasn’t run away from you, has he?… suffer in an empty house without you?  So to ease your conscience, and keep him from scratching the furniture or chewing the baby, you decide to pay more per diem for Fluuffy to get stroked, fed and pampered than you paid for the flight and hotel package.

 

Ah, but that is not all.  What about the people who charge you for petrol because you are sitting in their automobile going to the same place they are?  Or the ones who make you pay a rental for a sweater you wanted to borrow for the dance?   They have figured out how to make capitalism pay and every one of us buy into it.

 

Now we have the photographers who figured out how a random picture can catapult them into the big bucks.  What with cell phone cameras and Polaroid’s, instant photography is at our fingertips.  Nothing is sacred.  Look at face book…pictures of a doll that was mutilated, a sunset in a place you would never go, a wounded toe…all there to share with your friends who couldn’t care less about your toe, your doll or your sunset.

 

I simply cannot imagine having a photographer I barely know staring at body parts that heretofore I had kept concealed in my underwear, watching me heave moan, writhe and suffer through one of the most painful though gratifying human acts.  I simply cannot fathom wanting a shot of my kid pushing his way out of my vagina covered with slime and afterbirth looking like he should be recycled.  Once that picture is taken it is frozen in time.  Why get a photographer to record a moment that you want to end as fast as possible so you can get on with life?

 

Imagine how your little boy will feel when he introduces you to the love of his life and you whip out a picture of him wrinkled, wet and covered with blood and say, ”That’s how he looked when he was born!” followed by  the inevitable, ”Wasn’t he precious?”

 

For my part, I want the kid cleaned up before I look at him. I want my forehead cooled, my stitches done and a good mop up job before I smile and say “cheese.”  I may be in denial but if I am going to record a birth, I want it to look gorgeous.  I want to remember the life I created, not its cost.  The good news is that I never WILL have to make that choice. That is one of the true joys of aging.

 

Being born is like being kidnapped

Then sold into slavery.

William Shakespeare

Britain’s Got Talent and Me

By Joe Cillo

BGT AND ME

Let the path be open to talent.
Napoleon Bonaparte

Every now and then, opportunity knocks on your door in strange and mysterious ways.  The trick is to distinguish which is nonsense and which is your personal road to nirvana.  Sadly, I have never had that knack.  If you ask me to do just about anything that won’t put me in traction or murder an innocent bystander, I’ll give it a go.

I was cracking rude one-liners in Edinburgh for my one woman show last August when a young, unbelievably enthusiastic girl named Louise smiled at me and said, “How would you like to try out for Britain’s Got Talent?”

“But I’m not British.  I am from San Francisco,” I said.

Her enthusiasm did not diminish.  She positively bounced with delight when she said, “That doesn’t make any difference to us.”

“When do you want me?” I said.

It was that devil-may-care attitude that took me back to the Edinburgh Conference Center in Edinburgh for the first round of try-outs in October.  I was not a novice at this “I’ve Got Talent” business.  Four years ago, I managed to get to the third day in Las Vegas before America’s Got Talent told me I was hopeless. That was why I had a bit more perspective on the whole procedure for BGT last October.  I realized that the process was a bit of a soap opera and the purpose was to create a balanced TV show with a pre-decided proportion of singers, dancers, novelty acts and several “tear your heart out” stories.   I understood that even though the viewers blamed Peers Morgan in America and Simon Cowell in London for their unsympathetic and arbitrary dismissal of the candidates, both men were actually doing what they were told by faceless producers who had decided well before we tried out the second time who was in and who was rubbish.  I also figured out that being on the program would in no way “make my career.”  In America, a touchingly hopeful man named Paul impersonated Frank Sinatra right down to the skinny tie and blue contact lenses. “This is going to catapult me into the big time, darling,“ he said and I believed him.

I have never heard or seen him since.

That said, the initial weeding out process is not done by the stars we see pushing buzzers on our TV screen. The film crew create two minute clips to give to the producers who are designing the show.  It is these people who spend several months deciding who they want for each sequence of the show.   That first audition  is a heady experience.  Every hopeful believes that he is a cut above the rest and not afraid to prove it.  In Edinburgh, I met a business man who insisted he was destined for Glyndebourne.  He hummed arias to prove it not quite under his breath as we stood in endless lines waiting to be processed for the filming to come.   There was a lad of 13 whose mother swore he was the best country singer this side of the universe.  She never stopped coaching him while we waited our turns.  She stood outside the door when he went into the filming room, certain she had mothered an international star soon to pay her way into early retirement.  Neither the man or the boy made the grade.

I found Britain’s Got Talent far more humane and caring than America’s.  That exciting day in Edinburgh, I was treated like I was already a star by the delightful group of young people who make it all happen.  They check applications, organize the thousands of applicants with undiminished graciousness, escort each performer to a comfortable waiting area until they are filmed and assign the more interesting applicants to the camera crew for extra filming.  That day, I was taken to the station and filmed as if I had arrived on the bus even though I had taken the overnight train from London.  It is all part of the pretence that this is a reality show instead of the staged, pre-arranged event it has become.

The film crew who do the initial screening are endlessly patient and very sensitive to the talent performing their hearts out for the two minutes they are allowed to strut their stuff.  The best part is that no one knows that day if they made the grade.  That way, the decision comes on your computer where you can absorb it in your own way.  In America they loved to film you dissolved in tears, distraught because you lost your chance to be a star.

It is not so for the second phase.  I found out in late January that I had made the first cut and was asked to return to Edinburgh February 11 for an exceptionally long day at he Festival theatre to meet the judges.  In that session, only water is provided for a day that lasts well into the evening.  We were allowed to bring 4 friends to cheer us on and give away as many tickets as we liked for our performance before a live audience. I am from another country and of a certain age.  The few friends I have here are in their dotage and do not have the stamina for a 10-12 hour day.  I do have a smattering of young ones who can endure and one brought me a sandwich to sustain me.  Her reward was Simon Cowell’s autograph  when he entered the building about 3 pm that afternoon.

This phase of the elimination process is filled with electric anticipation.  We meet the people whom the producers think might make the grade.  This group of  performers are whittled down to the top 20 or so in each city where the try-outs took place.  My day at The Festival Theatre was filled with endless conversation and networking.  I hobnobbed with a band of Glaswegians in kilts with brilliant red, green and blue hair and a fantastic attitude, three girls who thought they were the second millennium version of The Andrew Sisters and Stuart Crout who invented a combination ukulele, guitar, piano and banjo all in one and had practiced his craft on the streets of Edinburgh since he was 11 years old.  We were all filmed talking to one another, waiting, drinking, fidgeting and hoping.  The highlight of the afternoon for me was meeting Stephen Mulhern.  We bantered back and forth and I agreed to be his gran. We decided if I actually won I would buy him a house and you know?  I would have done it.  He is charming.  I never felt judged or scrutinized (although all of us were) when I spoke with him.  I didn’t feel that I was performing either even though I knew I was being filmed.

When our big moment arrived, we sat in a long, airless hall behind the stage and waited to meet the judges.  We heard one performer after another buzzed off the stage and I realized how the people in Paris during their revolution felt as they waited in line at the guillotine.  The buzzer is incredibly loud and my big worry was that I would be so started if it sounded that I would faint or scream.  We were told that no matter how many times we were buzzed we should continue as if nothing had happened.  If that doesn’t test your endurance, nothing will.   The three girls I had met earlier went on stage and were buzzed off immediately. I could hear the audience cheering them and adoring them and then a pause.  The judges decided to let them try once more.  All of us in the back room smiled and started breathing again but alas!  Within seconds they were buzzed again by all four judges.

I thought, “I will never get through this.  Why on earth did I set myself up for this kind of public rejection?”

I was ushered into the area just behind the curtain and I met Anthony of Ant and Deck.  He showed me how I was to enter the stage and explained where I must stand.  And then I was on stage and the four judges were smiling at me. I did my two minutes and to my amazement, no one buzzed me. However,  Simon Cowell told me in no uncertain terms that I bored him and I told him I was very sorry I did.  Was he acting?  Did he mean it?  I will never know. The others were uncommonly kind and Alesha Dickson pointed out that it was unusual to have a performer my age on the program. That she said was working in my favour.  The three, Amanda Holden, Alesha Dickson and David Walliams voted for me and I got through!!!

I literally floated through the labyrinth of hallways to the vestibule, and was filmed saying I how amazed I was and then ushered back to see Stephen Mulhern to tell him he was one step closer to having a home of his own.

When I returned for some extra filming I met one of the young ladies in the group who had performed before me and she was awash in tears.  That was when I realized the inhumanity of the procedure.  Here she was convinced she was a failure even though the audience had clapped, stomped and cheered her group without reservation.

Stuart didn’t get into the next phase either, even though the staff had found him on You Tube and invited him to the second phase without enduring that first weeding out at The Conference Center. No one helps these hopeful, optimistic and very sensitive performers to understand that getting on this program neither makes or breaks them and that life offers endless opportunities.  This was just one.

The next phase took place at the end of February in London and the day began at 7:30 in the morning.  This is the phase where Britain’s Got Talent pays all your expenses and everyone you meet is certain they are stars.  There were about 100 acts from all over the country, the top winners from all the previous try-outs.  I absolutely adored everyone I met.  There was a singer who had been rejected in another reality program and mustered the courage to try again.  There was a group of middle aged guys from Manchester totally out of shape and bursting with hope.  There was a tranny named James who took me under his/her wing.  We all chatted and traded stories all day while we waited to see if we would go on to the next phase.  While I was there I saw a group of the oldest human beings I have ever seen still breathing and I asked them where they were from.  One of them managed to gasp, “London.”

And that was when I knew I had not gotten in.  Alesha Dickson had said BGT didn’t have a good representation of people my age and here was my competition.  They were older and they were really British.  I didn’t have a chance.   At 5:30 that day, I was ushered into a room with the four judges and Amanda Holden told us we were eliminated.  She was very gracious and kind but for the other two in that room with me she could have just as well thrust a knife into their hearts.  The effect was the same.    The young girl with me was devastated and sobbed for the next hour as we waited to be processed and dismissed.  I tried to console her but there was no way to stop those tears.  I looked at this child barely 17 years old who labelled herself as a failure and I knew then that despite the entertainment value of the program, its cost was far too high to those who lose and even higher for those who make it to the top only to realize that the top goes nowhere.

I left London and retuned home, ready to get on with my life and my comedy career.  The experience was wonderful and the people I met unforgettable.  For me, the adventure was over.  But I was wrong.  April 14, while I was dancing my heart out at the Texas Burlesque Festival I received a barrage of e mails.  BGT had shown my segment on television and all the world got to see me!!! It was a heady experience…but since I knew the outcome, I knew the thrill was momentary.

Wrong again.  I am in Brighton now and I cannot count the number of people who have stopped me on the street to ask, “Are you the lady I saw on Britain’s Got Talent.”  The truth is that I am wallowing in even more fame than I expected without getting anywhere near the top.  What can be better than that?

Winning takes talent, to repeat takes character.
John Wooden

 

This “Tuna” Bites Back

By Joe Cillo

620 words By ROSINE REYNOLDS

This “Tuna” Bites Back
Tuna, Texas is a fictional small town with a small town’s closeness. However, this community is not the pies- and-picket fences of Andy’s Mayberry, Hank Hills’ Arlen, Keillor’s Lake Woebegone or anyplace in “Our Town.” Tuna is more tumbleweed and barbed wire.
This town starts its mornings with local news from radio OKKK, delivered by veteran newscasters Thurston Wheelis and Arles Struvie. Today’s headline concerns the death of an important citizen, Judge Bruckner, beloved for being the judge who ordered the most hangings. The judge was found wearing a women’s bikini bathing suit. (This story will be corrected later as to the kind of swim suit it was.)
There follows a commercial from Didi’s Used Weapons, which, even though used, are “absolutely guaranteed to kill.” A standard Texas weather report follows, predicting “rain from all directions,” a dust storm, locusts and Tropical Storm Luther.
We then get a close-up look into the Buford household, where Mrs. Buford is being interviewed about her work on the Censorship Committee. The Committee objects to “Roots” in the public schools, saying that it “only shows one side of the slavery issue.” “Romeo and Juliet” is also on their list because of its “rampant disregard for parental authority and teenaged sex.”
But all is not harmony in Tuna. Many townspeople are at odds with the local animal lover, Petey Fisk of the Humane Society. (Petey has nightmares all through hunting season.) Mrs. Pearl Burras loves animals too, as long as they’re chickens, which she defends with modern science. Mrs. Buford doesn’t love animals as much as she used to before her Jody began collecting dogs. But Jody’s sister Charleen is having a personal crisis because she didn’t make cheerleader, and now she’s a senior.
There is, of course, a church, and the Rev. Spikes arrives to deliver a one-size-fits-all eulogy for the Judge. The Deity is also called upon for various needs throughout the story.
A genuine Texan, Linda Dunn, directed “Greater Tuna” for the finale of Ross Valley Players’ 82nd season. Its spoofs are, she says, “all these things I grew up around.” And it was on a visit back to the Lone Star State to see her mom that Ms. Dunn saw a production of “Greater Tuna” with more than two in the cast.
Originally created by three men – Jaston Williams, Joe Sears and Ed Howard — the show’s twenty characters were played by just Williams and Sears, each taking on multiple roles. The show debuted in Austin in 1981 and went on to become first in a series of four. It has since developed a loyal audience, even having an online General Store with its own merchandise.
Ross Valley Players’ version uses a cast of seven, including a number of recognizable names. Jim Dunn plays newscaster Thurston Wheelis as well as Elmer Watkins. Wood Lockhart is his partner, Arles Struvie, but is also Didi Snavely, the weapons saleslady. News banter between Wheelis and Struvie are highlights of the show.
The versatile Steven Price carries five parts, only four of whom are human. Robyn Grahn plays all the Bumiller children. Tom Hudgens (another Texan) is both the beleaguered Petey Fisk and the very proper church lady, Vera Carp. Jeffrey Taylor portrays three townspeople, including the Sheriff, and Javier Alarcon plays four others.
Michael A. Berg costumes all these people right down to the slip showing and the ear-flap hats.
“Greater Tuna” will be at The Barn Theater in the Marin Art & Garden Center, Ross, through Aug. 12. Thursday performances are at 7:30; Friday and Saturday shows are at 8 p.m., and Sundays at 2 p.m. For complete information and ticket prices, see www.rossvalleyplayers.com, and for reservations, call 456-9555, ext. 1.

“King John” — Good Play about a Bad Guy

By Joe Cillo

“King John” – Good Play about a Bad Guy

Just as hurricane names are retired after they cause devastation, the name John
seems to be off-limits for British kings. One John was plenty. This was the same king who usurped his brother’s throne while Richard was on the Crusades and the same who harried Robin Hood. He’s also the king who was forced to sign the Magna Carta in 1215 when his over-taxed barons demanded their “ancient liberties” back.

Marin Shakespeare’s Managing Director, Lesley Currier, has revived the Bard’s seldom-seen “King John” with a dynamic blend of fine acting and history. To appreciate this production fully, be sure to read Ms. Currier’s program notes before the action begins.

John has succeeded his popular brother, Richard Lionheart — killed in France by a crossbow — and is receiving an ultimatum sent by Philip, King of France, to relinquish all English claims to French territory. John refuses, though war between the two countries is sure to result. The ambassador leaves, and a pair of brothers arrives, one of whom claims to be King Richard’s illegitimate son. John’s mother, Elinor, sees the resemblance, and the older brother is knighted Sir Richard. He’s eager for the fight.

Back in France, King Philip’s ambassador delivers the bad news that England will not negotiate, and war is imminent. The court shelters young Arthur, son of John’s older brother Geffrey, and his devoted mother Constance, Geffrey’s widow.

(Those who are keeping score can see that there are now three possible claimants to the throne. Will there be more?)

A full-scale war erupts around the amphitheatre, after which it’s agreed that John’s niece, Lady Blanch, should marry Lewis, the French Dauphin; Arthur will be given a land grant as a consolation prize. Sir Richard, who has taken a fancy to Blanch, calls this peace agreement “most base and vile.” Everyone’s taking sides. Austria switches its allegiance to England; Cardinal Pandulph, the Pope’s emissary from Rome, is turned away, but first he excommunicates John and warns that France must not become his ally. King Philip chooses to remain with the Church, and the fight continues.

Shakespeare, by all accounts, never traveled, so it’s pardonable that he might have thought France and England were closer neighbors. But here’s where the Director’s program notes are essential.

Elizabethan audiences were proudly English and disdainful of foreigners. Besides, Gloriana herself might be in the audience. So Shakespeare’s French are shown as foppish and arrogant, his Austrian’s a brute in animal skins, and his Catholic emissary is deceitful. This way, even though King John is known to be a bad guy, he’s not as bad as the others.

There are thirty-three in the cast, and the ensemble playing is seamless. Scott Coopwood is a masterful King John, chilling in his conversations with Hubert (James Hiser.) Barry Kraft plays the beleaguered French King, torn between his love of country and this duty to the Church. Steven Muterspaugh portrays the Cardinal, accurately predicting John’s end. Liz Sklar, mother to young Arthur, holds the audience with her grief when Arthur’s been spirited away to England, and Erik MacRay is the ambitious Sir Richard.

And yes, there is another heir. In a wonderful concluding scene, Sir Richard will deliver the crown, and the Plantagenets will be redeemed.

“King John” plays at the Forest Meadows Amphitheatre in Dominican University, San Rafael in repertory with “Midsummer Night’s Dream” through Aug. 12. Parking and restroom facilities have been remodeled and greatly improved since last season. The amphitheatre is still outdoors, though, so playgoers should dress for the weather.

Ticket prices range from zero (under 18 on Family Day matinees) to $22. For complete information or reservations, please see www.marinshakespeare.org or call the box office, 499-4488.

Glickman — Film Review

By Joe Cillo
Glickman
Directed by James Freedman
This is an outstanding documentary about a sports broadcaster who was very well known in and around New York, but probably not much beyond that area.  I had never heard of him before attending this film and neither did my companion, who is a sportsfan, Jewish, and a little bit older than me.  Marty Glickman (1917-2001) was probably the most influential sports broadcaster of all time, but he also had a profound influence on the nature of sports entertainment in the United States.  His style and the quality of his delivery did much to popularize sports through the (new at that time) mass media of radio and later television.  He was the voice of the New York Yankees, the New York Giants, later the New York Jets, the New York Knicks, as well as boxing, horse racing, and a number of other minor sports.  Listening to the recordings of his broadcasts presented in the film, I was impressed by the fluency of his delivery.  He was able to translate the fast moving action before him immediately into words that conveyed not only the action, but the visual experience of that action.  People called it ‘watching the game on the radio.’  And indeed his crisp, concise, rapid fire descriptions enabled one to visualize the action as it happened.  It is a rare talent and he had mastered it.  It is a kind of poetry, really.  It is words used succinctly and imaginatively — and orally — to their maximum effect.  If you are a sportsfan, if you are from New York, or if you were born before about 1975, and whether you are Jewish or not, you should definitely find this film interesting. 
Marty Glickman was Jewish and this fact was a crucial factor at many points in his life.  He was selected for the 1936 U.S. Olympic track and field team when he was eighteen, along with Sam Stoller, the only two Jews on the team.  Off they went to Berlin to race under Nazi banners and before Hitler and the top echelon of the Third Reich.  They were scheduled to race in the 400 meter relay, in which the U.S. was heavily favored to win, but were replaced at the last minute by Jesse Owens and Ralph Metcalf — two black athletes — over Owens objections.  Their removal was engineered by U.S. Olympic Committee Chairman Avery Brundage and the U.S. Olympic track coach, Dean Cromwell in order to appease Hitler and prevent the Nazis from being embarrassed by having to award medals to two Jews on the winners’ podium.  The U.S. did indeed win, but Glickman carried the insult with him a long way.  He was not forward about it, but the wound was evident many years later upon his return to Berlin and the stadium where it occurred.  Brundage and Cromwell were Nazi sympathizers and after the Olympics Brundage’s construction firm was awarded the contract to build the new German embassy in Washington D.C.  This wasn’t the last time Marty Glickman’s Jewish origins resulted in his being shunted aside.  He was scotched from being the voice of the NBA games on NBC because his name was considered “too Jewish.” 
There is also an interesting, extremely provocative episode that Glickman and Isaacs chose to leave out of their book, a moment that might easily be dismissed as apocryphal, except for the fact of my close relationship with Glickman.  Marty and Morris (he insisted that he be called Maurice’ but his name was Morris) Podoloff, the first commissioner of the NBA, were invited to meet with Tom Gallery, the Sports Director for NBC’s television network in his office at 30 Rockefeller Plaza. The intention, Podoloff told Marty, was to discuss Glickman’ becoming the “Voice” of the network’s newly acquired rights to weekly nation-wide telecasts of NBA games. Gallery was effusive in his praise of Marty’s TV work on the games shown locally on the Dumont local outlet, Channel 5 in New York. Gallery, however had one reservation; the name Marty Glickman sounded “too New York” he claimed.  Marty knew immediately what Gallery was implying. The name of Glickman was “too Jewish.” Glickman then told Gallery that he wasn’t averse to changing it. Gallery smiled and asked Marty whether he had an alternative name that he could use. “Yes,” said Marty. “And what would that be,” asked Gallery. “Lipschitz.” said Marty, Marty Lipschitz.” “Gallery’s face reddened,” Marty reported, ˇthat ended the meeting.” It also ended any intention that Marty Glickman would broadcast any NBA games on NBC.
Nat Asch, from a review of The Fastest Kid on the Block, (1999) by Marty Glickman, on WNEW website
While the film does feature the suffering Glickman endured as a result of the anti-Semitism that was prominent in American society during his lifetime, it also illustrates how Glickman was able to triumph in spite of prejudice and discrimination.  Although in a few significant cases his path was blocked, what he was able to achieve was vast and awe inspiring.  In the question session after the screening I saw, Director James Freedman remarked that one of the unintended consequences of the film was that through the life of Marty Glickman a documentation of the progress of assimilation of Jews into the mainstream of American society in the twentieth century becomes evident. 
The film is very comprehensive in its treatment of Marty Glickman’s professional career as a broadcaster.  It is very superficial in its treatment of his personal and family life.  He was married and had a family.  His daughter, Nancy, does appear in the film.  Interestingly, she had been a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union.  However, his wife, although pictured, never speaks or comments on her famous husband, who is praised so honorifically by so many others.  Freedman was asked during the question session about the omission of Glickman’s family life from the film, and he said it was due to considerations of space and that he wanted to focus the film on Glickman’s professional career.  That is fair, but much of the film is taken up with presenting Marty Glickman as a great person, a Mensch, who helped so many people, and who was so active in community organizations and activities for children and high school athletes, in addition to being a great broadcaster.  It seems that at least a word or two from his wife would be worthy support to such a presentation and strengthen its credibility. 
After the showing Freedman chatted a bit with a few people who lingered, and I asked him about something else that was omitted which I was curious about, namely, what relationship, if any, Marty Glickman had with Howard Cosell, a Jewish broadcaster that I was very familiar with from my teens.  Freedman’s answer was that they hated each other, and the reasons for the omission were again space and focus.  I was able to find the following anecdote about Cosell in Glickman’s 1999 autobiography, The Fastest Kid on the Block.
“From one of my favorites, Costas, let me move on to say something about my unfavorite, Howard Cosell.  I recall in particular the occasion when he and I were inducted into the Jewish Sports Hall of Fame in California in the mid-1980s.  We both spoke:  he last; I, just before him.
I spoke for about ten minutes.  I spoke about the beauty and joy of sport, the camaraderie that exists among athletes, the understanding and affection that athletes have for each other, particularly in international athletics.  The talk seemed to be well received. 
Then Cosell got up and immediately started talking about Munich in 1972.  “I saw no camaraderie,” he said in that sneering tone of his.  “I saw these men shot and killed. I was there watching those desperadoes.  I saw none of that good feeling.”
He equated murdering terrorists with Olympic athletes.  He went out of his way to knock the whole point I was trying to make.  He was as nasty and vitriolic about the Olympic Games and international athletics as he could be.  He scoffed at “alleged sportsmanship” among athletes. 
I was sitting there furious at what he was saying.  But I was gentleman enough not to get up and make a scene about it.  He sat down, and then, in moments after concluding, left the ballroom.”
                                                            from The Fastest Kid on the Block, p. 156
I suspect that Freedman, aside from the incidents of anti-Semitism, wanted to keep the film upbeat and positive in tone.  It is an acceptable approach, but it does leave some unfinished business that I wish he would at least have touched upon.
Generally the film is a well made, well thought out, honorific presentation of Marty Glickman, who was not only a great sports broadcaster, but also a great person, a person who was not diminished by the injustices that he suffered, but who was made better and who rose above the adversity in his life to give of himself to many others in great abundance.  Anyone with a significant interest in sports should by all means see this film, but even those who have little or no interest in sports will find the human story of his life compelling.   Seen at the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival, Castro Theater, July 22, 2012.

Event 1 July 2012

By Joe Cillo

Event 1 July 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

July 2012

Marat Sade

By Joe Cillo
The Thrillpeddlers are currently performing “The Persecution and Assassination of Jean-Paul Marat as Performed by the Inmates of the Asylum of Charenton, Under the Direction of the Marquis de Sade.” If you cannot remember that prolix title then the succinct, MARAT SADE, will suffice and get you tickets for the correct show at the Brava Theatre in San Francisco’s Mission District. If you cannot remember Marat Sade and his role in the French Revolution then perhaps you might remember Marat Sade via the painter Jacques-Louis David who immortalized Marat in his painting “The Death of Marat;” the painted resides in the Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts in Brussels. Before launching into the play, a historical excursus may be helpful, given that the adversarial relationship between Marat Sade and the Marquis de Sade as depicted in the play is not without historical basis. In the days prior to his assassination, Marat had fallen out with the Marquis de Sade and was arranging for his arrest. We might call the assassination a preemptive strike given that the Marquis de Sade was becoming appalled with the excesses of the Reign of Terror which Marat fanned with his uncompromising incendiary revolutionary rhetoric. Given the excesses of the French Revolution, it seems incongruous that the infamous Marquis de Sade should be removed from office and imprisoned for his “moderatism.” Marat’s assassin—about which this play orbits—was the crafty Charlotte Corday. Corday gained access to Marat via a ruse, an urgent letter of petition—one of the first of many murders conducted by letter carriers. Prior to ripping through Marat’s sternum with a kitchen knife, Corday engaged him a political discourse for nearly a quarter of an hour; her salient points were obviously lost on Marat. The nefarious Corday hid her knife in her corset which fashion historians argue was probably a size too large in order to comfortably accommodate both her anatomy and her weapon. As George Santayana said, “Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.” Marat, ignoring the lessons of the ORESTIA, like Agamemnon, feels the sting of the assassin’s blade while trustingly and vulnerably soaking in a bath. It calls to question if sponge baths or a speed baths in public restrooms would not be better suited to political extremists. Miss Charlotte defended the assassination saying “I killed one man to save 100,000.” As the whirly-gig of time would have it, for her well-meaning treachery, Charlotte Corday ultimately ends up on the receiving end of an ever bigger blade; the angled blade “humanely” advocated by Doctor Joseph-Ignace Guillotin. Peter Weiss, author of the play on which this adaption by Adrian Mitchell is based, questions whether revolution can truly achieve lasting change or significantly improve the human condition. We may vote out, toss out or execute the current cadre of bureaucrats, bankers, brokers and tax collectors, but necessity and culture will replace them with possibly an even more rapacious brood—remember: after the French Revolution came Napoleon. Be warned: when the English version of this play opened at the Royal Shakespearian Theatre, a minimum of 30 repulsed and disgusted people slipped away each night under the anonymity of intermission. Critics charged that the “nudity and bodily effluvia were shocking and the text itself was overwhelmed by the raw outpourings of primal emotion.” Now that’s a pretty strong endorsement. Be warned a second time: the show does contain nudity so depending on your degree of prurience or priggishness and where you are seated, opera glasses or a lorgnette may be appropriate. The philosophical debate between the Marquis de Sade, who “fails to delve into his words fully,” and Marat seems to take a back seat to the chaotic violence it precipitates. De Sade is the engine in the play; he cynically conducts philosophical dialogues with Marat; badgering him, all the while observing the proceedings with sardonic satisfaction. De Sade remains detached when the inmates speak of rights and justice; he shows little regard for practical politics; de Sade stands by as an observer and an advocate for his own nihilistic, epicurean and individualist beliefs. Topically, the show is highly relevant given that it is an election year and perhaps a critical turning point for the middle class of the hitherto pampered world. As in the case of a revolution, the audience might ask itself, “Will a different political party be able to affect change?” or “Does the economy even have a political solution?” Perhaps it is time that the middle class reinvents itself: steps away from its consumer identity and redefines itself in terms of its cultural, intellectual, humanitarian and creative aspirations. MARAT SADE is a graphic diatribe against inadequate leaders who manipulate their people into complacency. While a revolution is taking place within the central cage of the set—leaving the floor strewn with clothes and bodies—the spectators i.e. the bourgeoisie as symbolized by the hospital director, Coulmier, his wife and daughter, sit in silence, uncertain as to how to react. Despite the best efforts of Coulmier, the patients make a habit of speaking lines Coulmier attempts to suppress; the patients deviate entirely into personal opinions. The play is both highly original and shockingly potent philosophically; it is a psychological journey into one of the most complex and brutal periods of recorded history. Multi-layered ideas come at the audience like insects splattering on a windshield; the words and images can be overwhelming; this is not casual entertainment; this is an exploration of history and the deepest questions of good and evil and free will. Dazzling and provocative costuming by the Bay Area’s award winning Beaver Bauer take this show from spectacle to spectacular; as Oscar Wilde once said, “Anything worth doing is worth doing to excess,” and Beaver has clearly approached that ideal. Jeff Garrett is smashing as the Marquis de Sade; when it is time to be whipped by the “cat of nine tails” Garrett is no shirker; the cracking of leather on his flesh would send a freak on holiday. Aaron Malberg as Jean-Paul Marat is masterful, he proves that understatement is the best depiction of profundity; caught in the web of his own political conceits, MR Malberg’s Marat is visibly tangled in a philosophical loop that does not provide exit strategies. Bonni Suval, as the nefarious Charlotte Corday, portrays a heightened psychopathic urgency and intensity; her every expression and movement seem to beg the question, “Can I kill him now?” Director Russell Blackwood does a marvelous job conducting this chaotic, riotous three ring circus orgy that seems to oscillate between a cast party and a mental hospital. Rarely does the carnal spirit of the French Revolution get captured by the Klieg Lights. MARAT SADE at the Brava is not the faint hearted; this is gritty; shocking; offensive; this is well worth the time and money. For more info, surf on over to thrillpeddlars.com

“The Tyranny of Cheerfulness” Samantha King

By Joe Cillo
PINK RIBBONs, INC., directed by Léa Pool, written by Patricia Kearns and Léa Pool; based on the book by Samantha King.
Statistics state that every 23 seconds a woman is diagnosed with breast cancer and one dies every 69 seconds.

The eye-opening Canadian documentary, “Pink Ribbons, Inc.,” is aptly subtitled “Capitalizing on Hope.”  Director Léa Pool filmed events in Susan G. Komen Walk-for-the-Cure during Breast Cancer Awareness Month (BCAM), held in major locations around the world.   AstraZeneca, a corporation that produces cancer-causing chemicals and drugs, founded BCAM, which takes place annually in October.
Watching the film, the preponderance of hot-pink EVERYTHING got to me- from the twisted pink ribbon to pink flamingo glasses.  Nowadays, you can’t turn around without a proliferation of pink products being pushed at you.   As seen in the film, the Komen’s “walk for the cure” has spread globally.  World leaders throw pink spotlights on monuments and/or historic sites, like Niagara Falls, during BCAM, an activity akin to breaking a bottle of champagne on the hull of a ship.  When interviewed, someone asked, “What does lighting up Niagara Falls with pink lights mean?”   It’s enough to make you gag.   Pool interviewed social commentator Barbara Ehrenreich.  Diagnosed with breast cancer, she opted out of going pink, saying she was highly offended by the infantilizing of women; and how one was expected to be upbeat.   Anger is negative; the efforts to find a cure are made to be fun!   Still, I wondered, where would AIDS research and treatment be if it weren’t for the anger of ACT UP (AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power) in the 1980s?
The efforts to find a cure started in the 1940s.  It was seen as a battle (Ehrenreich commented, “I wasn’t battling anything.  I chose to live”).  During WWII, members of the American Cancer Society, marched in military uniforms to demonstrate the “fight against” cancer here at home while “our boys” fought the enemy overseas.   Back then, the ratio of breast cancer deaths was 1 in 22, now it’s a shocking one in eight.  Today, an astounding 59,000 women a year die of breast cancer.  What is going on?  Ronald Reagan had pledged to throw millions of dollars into finding a cure.  It became a philanthropic endeavor and huge corporations came on board.  Many wonder where all the money is going; there is very little to show for it.  Philanthropic foundations believe that the solution is more money.   Yet there is no coordination between federal and/or private foundation cancer research organizations.  Andl only a tiny percentage of all the Komen funds go to research ( 15% last year, down from 20%.  Komen has cut by nearly half the proportion of funds it spends on research grants).
It has been noted that drug companies profit by making people terminally ill- a truly egregious cycle.  Heads of pharmaceutical corporations must be rubbing their hands knowing that the more drugs they sell, the more people will develop cancer.  Cancer is a disease with an indefinite remission or end-time, so corporations can sell their wares indefinitely.   Cancer surgeon, Dr. Susan Love feels that chemotherapy and radiation are poisons.  She wants more research.   Yet few scientists are studying the effects of pesticides, toxins, and plastics in the environment- some plastic products disrupt hormones in all species.  It is a known fact that certain plastics mimic female hormones, destroying endocrine functions.   Interestingly, so far, studies have included only white women, when an inordinate number of women of color, due to income disparities, live in environmentally compromised areas.   Yet Komen sponsors can’t work with environmentalists because Komen has ties to companies whose products contain carcinogenic substances!  Interestingly, no mention was made in the film concerning men with breast cancer.  Perhaps Polo or some other male-oriented product will step up.  Still, since 2009, men get their own week during BCAM
The Komen “cancer industry” hooked up with corporations and evolved into selling their products.  Yoplait, until it was discovered that its yogurt contained bovine growth hormone-  the company has since stopped using it and iIt still supports Komen; Revlon and Estée Lauder got on the pink bandwagon, both whose cosmetics contain carcinogenic chemicals-  they promised to investigate.  Avon’s Avon Foundation for Women disassociated itself from Avon Products to protect them from liability from its cancer causing ingredients.   During one BCAM, Kentucky Fried Chicken sold its deep-fried chicken in pink buckets (a short film clip shows that Colonel Saunders had switched his trademark white suit to pink), creating controversy.  The hypocrisy is stunning considering that these companies purport to fight cancer.
Sports teams signed on to BCAM realizing they could profit.  Since many NFL players were not nice guys, they joined the cause, and, in my eyes, made themselves ridiculous wearing pink laces in their cleats; pink ribbon logos on helmets and other equipment.  After an influential breast cancer survivor ordered herself a white, pink- striped Mustang, Ford held raffles for a designer Mustang, proceeds to benefit Komen.  Sadly, a dozen female Ford employees who had assembled the cars’ plastic interiors, died from breast cancer.   “When I see a pink ribbon,” activist Judy Brady says, “I see evil.”   That’s how I felt each time, Nancy Brinker,  Komen Foundation founder was interviewed in her blush, band-box pink jacket –  her robotized voice and smooth, heavily made up face, and perfect hair.
Pool interviewed a group of women with Stage IV, or end-stage- cancer, whose breast cancer metastasized.   “We’re made to feel we didn’t try hard enough,” one said.  Their doctors say that they can take drugs to prolong their lives.  The women ask: “But what kind of life would we be living?” Another said, “It’s like they’re using our disease to profit and that’s not OK.”
The film was made before the Planned Parenthood controversy where Komen pulled its funding from that organization.  Karen Handel, a Komen vice-president, and five other leaders have resigned, yet the flack continues.  The pink ribbon hype is a total phenomenon.    Would that the hundreds of thousands of people who participate could realize that they are being exploited for corporate profit so that they’ll get angry, organize, and speak out!   We need the energy of an ACT UP, the organization that propelled the eventual success of a viable AIDs treatment.