Don Quixote -- San Francisco Ballet Review Silver: A State of Mind -- Photographic Exhibit Review The Invisible War -- Film Review The Three Stooges -- Movie Review Battleground America: One Nation Under the Gun, Jill Lepore -- Comments San Francisco Ballet, Program 6 -- Performance Review


Don Quixote

San Francisco Ballet
April 27, 2012

  

This is a lighthearted farce that mocks the illusions that men have about women and love.  One might say that it is based on Don Quixote, the seventeenth century novel by Miguel de Cervantes, but calling this Don Quixote is quite a stretch.  It would be better titled "The Saga of Kitri and Basilio," but that would be harder to market.  However, that is the main subject matter of this production.  The character of Don Quixote is almost incidental in this ballet.  He is a comic figure, but it is sometimes hard to tell exactly what he is doing in this production.  They actually brought him and his sidekick, Sancho, out onto the stage at two different points on a live horse and a burro.  Perhaps it was to give them a little more visual emphasis, but they are really a sideshow.  The original novel is a story of Don Quixote's inner transformation, and how his many adventures lead to the loss of his illusions about chivalric love.  The ballet recreation does not make even the feeblest attempt to do this.  The story line is actually pretty thin and simple.  This ballet is a show of dance virtuosity, choreography, and costumes.  And that it does it to the hilt. 
This production is a marvelous spectacle of lights, costumes, sets, and dance extravaganza.  The costumes are dazzling.  Vibrant colors under bright white lights make them appear almost luminescent.  The dancing is superb to my untrained eye.  I would single out Maria Kochetkova (Kitri) and Taras Domitro (Basilio) for special recognition.  They were electrifying and the whole house could feel it.  The visual onslaught of color and light, the masterful choreography, and the nimble grace of top-flight dancing make you glad you don't have to think very much.  It amounted to a thoroughly enjoyable evening of spirited good cheer and polished physical accomplishment.  It was a privilege to be there. 

Silver:  A State of Mind

A photographic exhibit by Vicki Topaz.




This is a beautiful series of sixty-six portraits in black and white of women who have embraced the graying of their hair.  Some of them are actually multiple images, so the correct figure is somewhat higher than sixty-six, but there are two galleries on the website each containing a series of thirty-three images.  The Buck Institute for Research on Aging in Novato, California, is hosting the inaugural exhibition of a small sample of these images.  The photo exhibit celebrates the opening of the Institute’s new Regenerative Medicine Research Center.  The Buck Institute's exhibit only shows twelve of the sixty-six images from the website.  You have to make an appointment to see it, and that can only be done on a Thursday morning.  Not the most accessible venue.  I have not seen the exhibit at the Buck Institute.  I viewed the two galleries on the website indicated above.  However, I would very much like to see prints of these images in an accessible public venue, preferably in San Francisco, or perhaps in a high quality book.  However, the website is a perfectly adequate display, especially if you have large screen available. 

The exhibit raises a number of issues, but I think its overarching thrust is aesthetic: it points out very  forcefully and effectively that silver haired women can be both beautiful and interesting.  Topaz pointedly uses the word 'silver' to denote the color of aging hair, which is an important linguistic modification that carries much more positive connotations than 'gray'.  'Silver' suggests something desirable, valuable, and beautiful.  'Gray' suggests bland, dull, indistinct, and old.  The ideal of feminine beauty in American culture is young and thin and all about appearance rather than the inner self.  Topaz is pushing hard against that norm by showing us physically beautiful women with unabashedly gray hair.  The images dissent from a prevailing preoccupation with a woman's hair at the expense of the inner woman.  Women in American culture are judged so much on their external appearance rather than on their internal qualities, and this is particularly true with respect to sexual attractiveness: a judgment becomes increasingly harsh with age.  These images show women with undeniable physical beauty as well as emotional depth and personal complexity that should not be obscured by the color of their hair -- gray. 

In 2005, the hair color industry was worth about $11 billion dollars worldwide, with about $9 billion coming from home-use hair color and another $2 billion or so in salons.  L'Oreal, the industry leader, claims that 60 percent of American women color their hair.  (Linda Dyett, New York Times, April 24, 2005)

Men are also increasing their use of hair color products. 

"While the number of men over 18 who color their hair doubled from 1999 to 2010, from 3 percent to 6 percent, among men age 50 to 64 the rate has grown even more, from 3 percent to 10 percent, according to Multi-sponsor Surveys, a research firm." (New York Times,  January 12, 2011)

The answer to why people color their hair is probably similar to the reasons they use cosmetics in general.  Cosmetics attempt to improve upon the natural condition of our bodies, particularly in terms of appearance and odor.  The appearance and odor of one's body are closely related to one's social acceptability, sexual attractiveness, and one's inner sense of self-acceptance, self esteem.  The graying of hair as we age creates an involuntary change in these narcissistic fundamentals, which may or may not be welcome.  It is the resultant anxieties from these changes that are the lifeblood of the cosmetics industry.  The cosmetics industry was worth $333.6 billion in 2008 with $52.1 billion of that coming from the US.1   People are willing to pay a lot of money for self acceptance, social acceptability, and sexual attractiveness evinced through their bodies.   

There is a heading on the exhibit website that leads to quotations from the female subjects on their feelings about aging and a whole range of issues related to their choice of letting their hair grow gray.  They reflect the conflicted nature of the issue and its complexity in each individual.   Is it more "authentic" to simply allow one's natural hair color to be revealed and let the chips fall where they may in terms of perception in the eyes of others, or is it more "authentic" to create the physical appearance one wishes to present to the world?  Many women feel external pressure to color their hair from others who desire to perceive them in a particular way.  There is an economic aspect to it as well.  Some employers are perceived to desire younger workers, and therefore appearing to be older is thought to be a disadvantage in competing for some jobs. 

In today's world with the ready availability of hair coloring products and services, the presence of absence of gray hair is a personal choice, reflecting numerous inner and outer realities in a person's life.  I don't think Topaz is suggesting that women stop coloring their hair and simply let the silver emerge.  She is not advocating the abolition of our current cultural ideals.  But she is creating an alternative aesthetic by presenting silver hair as a viable possibility for attractive femininity in later years.  She is expanding our ideal of feminine beauty to include the later years of a woman's life.  It is a positive, constructive intent, beautifully executed.    

In nearly every image the hair is partly out of focus.  Usually this blurring of the hair takes place on the side of the face further from the viewer, or toward the rear, but sometimes the lower portion of the hair was blurred and the top left in focus.  It varied a little bit in each image, but it was a very salient characteristic of the series.  I couldn't decide if this was done with a lens filter, or with the choice of f-stop, or if it was a digital artifact.  But it is clear that Topaz's intent is to deemphasize the viewers' inclination to focus on the women's hair.  Rather, she would have us focus on the inner selves of the women, and this is best seen through their eyes, which are always very expressive and absolutely sharp.  It is a message that asks the viewer to reconstruct his or her conception of beauty and attractiveness as it pertains to the aging woman.  The exhibit should be of interest to any woman over thirty-five.  I would hope that it finds its way into a more accessible, concrete public venue.  It deals with issues that affect everyone sooner or later, and it puts them forward thoughtfully and with great sensitivity and compassion.



  

1.  Market Share Reporter, Vol. 1 (2012)  Edited by Robert S. Lazich.  Detroit, New York, et. al:  Gale Cengage Learning.  p. 326



The Invisible War

Directed by Kirby Dick



The Invisible War presents one aspect of a deep seated problem in American society.  It is limited in scope and thus shortsighted in its understanding of the problem and in its vision for what to do about it.    The film is entitled The Invisible War.  Maybe it seems invisible to the filmmakers, who are just waking up to it, but this war has been going on in American society for at least 150 years.   The military has had some insulation from it until the recent infusion of women into its ranks starting in the 1970s, but the problems which the film oversimplifies have been raging on an interpersonal, social, and legal level for many decades. 
The film details stories of perhaps a dozen women who were raped or sexually assaulted during their military service by fellow soldiers.  I liked the way the film started out interviewing each woman and asking why she chose to enter the military.  The responses glowed with idealism, pride, patriotism, and the desire to continue family traditions.  It represented the myth, the illusion of the military, which is probably widespread in American society, particularly among those from military backgrounds.  It perfectly set up the shattering of those illusions by the realities the women found once they were enrolled in the service.  The film captures very well a disconnect between expectations and reality in the minds of many women entering the military. 

The root problem here -- which the film is oblivious to -- is the official suppression of male sexuality that has been steadily intensifying in American culture since the mid-1800s.  The military, however, being predominantly male and being socially segregated from the civilian society, has been able to sidestep the brunt of this official persecutory stance toward men and their lust, creating an insulated domain where male sexuality has been much freer and much more tolerated than anywhere else in American society.  However, since 1973, when conscription ended, the number of women in the military has steadily increased from 2% to 14% today, and the percentage of commissioned officers has risen from 4% to 16%.  Nearly a third of the women serving in the U.S. military are black, compared with only 16% of the males.  Active duty women are less likely than active duty men to be married (46% to 58%).  Nearly half of all married military women have married a fellow military man, while only 7% of married military men wed military women.  12% of military women are single mothers.  37% of active duty women are in the Army, 31% are in the Air Force, 25% are in the Navy, and only 7% are in the Marine Corps.1 

With the increase in the number of women in the military, the number of sexual assaults has climbed steadily.  In 2010 over 3000 sexual assaults were reported to military authorities.2  The reported assaults are assumed to be only a small percentage of the actual number.  So the problem is clearly pervasive and reflects the culture and mentality within the military all up and down the ranks.   The film grossly oversimplifies the problem by reducing it to "predator" versus "prey."  If we can just get rid of those damn predators everything will be good.  Right now the procedural system within the military protects the predators and doesn't root them out, so we have to fix that.  It's myopic and misguided. 
The lawsuit filed by Kori Cioca and 27 other current and former female soldiers against Donald Rumsfeld and Robert Gates was dismissed by U.S. District Court Judge Liam O'Grady on December 9, 2011.  He states in his opinion:

 "the Plaintiffs are suing the Defendants for their responsibility in allegedly fostering a military atmosphere and environment that resulted in the Plaintiffs becoming victims of sexual assault. Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants, as Secretaries of Defense, failed to prevent sexual assaults within the military forum and failed to properly punish those individuals guilty of committing these offenses. The Plaintiffs pursue a remedy under limns, alleging that the Defendants' failures violated the Plaintiffs' First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights."3

 In the present case, the Plaintiffs sue the Defendants for their alleged failures with regard to oversight and policy setting within the military disciplinary structure. This is precisely the forum in which the Supreme Court has counseled against the exercise of judicial authority. Where the Supreme Court has so strongly advised against judicial involvement, not even the egregious allegations within Plaintiffs' Complaint will prevent dismissal. See id. at 683 ("|I]t is irrelevant to a 'special factors' analysis whether the laws currently on the books afford [the Plaintiff], or any other particular serviceman, an "adequate" federal remedy for his injuries. The special factor that counsels hesitation is not the fact that Congress has chosen to afford some manner of relief in the particular case, but the fact that congressionally uninvited intrusion into military affairs by the judiciary is inappropriate."3

I think the judge correctly grasps the problem that cases like these represent, and it also points to the imbalance in this film's portrayal of the issue.  The suit is an attack, not specifically on the individuals who committed the rapes, but on the entire sexual culture of the military and the authority structure that protects it.  It is true that the atmosphere of the military fosters sexual assault against women within the ranks.  The film documents that very clearly.  The suit (and this film) ask that we change that culture to accommodate women who are not prepared to participate in its rambunctious sexuality. 
The military does not want to deal with this.  They want to sweep it under the rug, ignore it, pretend that it doesn't exist, and punish anyone who tries to remind them differently.  It is understandable.  It is potentially highly disruptive and would destroy the hypermasculine fighting culture that currently exists.  If "sexual predators" were rooted out and sexual harassment strictly sanctioned, the result would be a very different military than the one we now have.  Whether it would be as effective in battle, I cannot say.  Warfare is changing, becoming more technological, less "labor intensive."  Perhaps the need for aggressive, combative men and a cohesive male culture within the military is becoming obsolete.  If the kind of change that these women want were implemented, many excellent fighting soldiers would be dismissed or thrown in jail.  The film tells us at the end that some of the rapists were promoted to high ranks after the rape charges were made against them.  One was awarded "Airman of the Year."  These are highly capable fighting men.  It would be a shame to waste them over a sex charge.  This is the military's instinct.  But the country is not under military threat right now.  We don't really need a military that can fight.  So perhaps we can afford this self savaging over sex.  But the military is resisting it, and, I am inclined to think, rightly. 

There are few frank descriptions of the sexual culture within the military.  Whenever it does emerge, as in the recent Secret Service scandal, the public reaction is shock and outrage.  But the military is not shocked.  What the military values is discretion, not sexual purity.  Those that are being punished today are being punished because they got caught up in a public scandal that embarrasses the military, not because the military objects to men fraternizing with prostitutes.  The culture of the military is at once highly sexualized and severely repressive -- very American, and a formula for denial and hypocrisy.  This film only shows the denial and hypocrisy.  It does not show the reality of the military's volatile sexual atmosphere in which women have to live and function.  This is a culture with deep historical roots created by men for men, and it is resistant to the presence of women, if not downright hostile.  The 3000 or so sexual assaults that get reported every year are only the tip of the iceberg.  Many men join the military precisely because it is a predominantly male environment that is highly masculinized.  It allows them to avoid the difficulties of relating to women in their personal lives. 

"Every kid goes into the military for his own reasons.  A lot of kids join just to get away from home, to try and better themselves in some way, or escape from some bad situation.  But every kid  who joins the military joins in part to fulfill an image.  The Marine Corps is the one branch that really markets itself for that.  There's a whole machismo thing.  The idea of proving or sanctifying your manliness by joining the Marines".4 
"I think from the beginning there's a different temperament for someone who becomes a Marine.  They know what they're getting into.  Very often the Marines that come in our doors are among the most insecure people, and they are seeking the security they have not found in their families.  Very often Marines are the worse of the worst.  After other service branches started demanding that you be a high school graduate the Marine Corps for years went on accepting people who were not.  The Marines in one sense have lower standards on that end of it; they are willing to take someone who is perhaps a little bit more of a derelict, but who wants the sense of pride and wants the title United States Marine."5 

"Like so many other young military men I interviewed, when asked why he had joined the service Anthony first told me that it was for money for schooling and other practical reasons.  Only later did he confess that he had another reason for enlisting: to bolster his image of himself as a man.  He imagined that by becoming a sailor he could masculinize himself.  Little did he know what other possibilities for gender and sex image enhancement lay in store for him."6

"The intimate buddy relationships men form in barracks, aboard ship, and most especially in combat [are] often described as being a love greater than between a man and a woman."7  
"Navy initiation rituals involve cross-dressing, spanking, simulated oral and anal sex, simulated ejaculation, nipple piercing, and anal penetration with objects or fingers."8  

"It's kind of hysterical whenever you hear the military talk about morality and maintaining a standard, especially when they talk about gays being promiscuous.  Well, I'll tell you.  Everyone from the captain on down, on most ships, is going out when they get into port to carry on and get laid.  And it's well known.  . . .  The Navy is an organization of whoremongers and other types of deviants."9

 This echoes a comment by Philip Van Buskirk in the nineteenth century:
"There is no school of vice comparable to the Navy.  Certainly ninety percent of the white boys in the Navy of this day … are, to an extent that would make you shudder, blasphemers and sodomites."10     

and Winston Churchill's remark about the British Navy:
"Don’t talk to me about tradition.  Tradition in the British Navy is nothing but rum, sodomy, and the lash."11  

"After we left Desert Storm we went to the Philippines.  I went out with a couple of my friends to these bars.  Oh God, it was so gross.  These women were grabbing you as soon as you walked in the door, grabbing your crotch, grabbing your butt, telling you, "Let's go to the room and fuck."  "No thanks."  All these married guys.  It didn't matter.  They just go in there, get a girl and leave, come back, go get another girl.  I guess it was ten dollars to get laid.  These guys had been out to sea for four months so all of them were horny as hell.  But every port is like that.  As soon as you get to the port all the guys just go crazy."12   
A former Marine Corp chaplain told Zeeland

"One of the things that threw me for a loop when I first saw field training is how they're taught to field clean.  Many of the DI's make them stand naked and shave each other's faces.  Their reasoning is you can't shave your own face in the mirror in the field.  And if there's anything more homoerotic than that, I don't know what is -- two hundred naked Marines standing face to face shaving each other.  Some of them will be beginning to get hard-ons or get hard-ons, much to their embarrassment."13 

"Marines are all the time jerking off in front of each other.  They'll just stand there and do it.  And jerk each other off, too.  That's very, very common from what I've seen."14 

Van Buskirk also observed that seafarers considered mutual masturbation an innocent practice and it seems to have been pervasive, if not universal on nineteenth century sailing ships.15 

The fact of the matter is that the military makes no provision for the sexual needs of its soldiers.  It is left to each individual to deal with as a private matter and military does not care to know about it.  "Don't ask, don't tell" is the classic military stance on sex.  From the top brass all the way down the chain of command, they just don't want to deal with this matter and the officers interviewed in The Invisible War represent this very plainly.
The military is fundamentally a fighting force.  It's expertise is killing people and destroying things.  It is hierarchical and authoritarian in structure.  Its culture is hypermasculine, aggressive, arrogant and masochistic.  Military boot camp has traditionally been a brutal rite of passage for males.  Young recruits are subjected to all manner of abusive treatment to prove their "toughness," and thus fitness for duty as a soldier and for manhood.16  The military culture seems to treat the rape of female soldiers as an extension of this kind of initiation rite.  The Invisible War documents the pervasive expectation that female soldiers should bear up and not complain about sexual assaults.  If they do, it's a sign that they are not fit to be soldiers.  The victims are punished severely for making a fuss.  This happened in every case the film depicted.  The women claim to be violated, but they, too, violated the military's code of a model soldier who keeps her mouth shut and deals with her own problems.  If you're a female and you want to serve in an army of men, you must be prepared to have your body violated, and you must bear that violation as a badge of toughness that proves your fitness to serve and deal with whatever severity may come to you.  These women wanted to serve under civilian rules, and they were roughly expunged.  What the film fails to do is to take the military values and its culture on its own terms.  They want the military to look and behave like civilian society.  But military organizations are very different from democratic societies with civil liberties and courts. 

The film fails to understand that this problem goes beyond just getting rid of some bad guys.  This a collision of cultures, of which most people in civilian society, unless they have been in the military, have no awareness.  In civilian society victims are rewarded with sympathy, compassion, support, and money.  But the military despises victims.  This is evident from the way the women who appeared in this film were treated.  It amounts to callous contempt.  In civilian society rape is a heinous crime.  In the military it is a minor infraction, if it is an infraction at all. 

What should be done?  The film advocates prosecuting rape in the military as is done in civilian society.  This will require creating an adjunct judicial system for the military that will have independence from the normal military chain of command.  I don't see how this can be done consistent with maintaining the authority structure of the military.  If this is carried out, the military will become a different kind of institution from what it is now.  I expect the military will fiercely resist this.  But with greater numbers of women entering the military and less need for male savagery and aggression, it may eventually be forced upon it.  Women should be told when they enter the military the military culture is highly sexual and they will be expected to participate in it.  Part of bonding with fellow soldiers, male and female, is sexual.  If they fail to do so, they may be coerced.  That is, in fact, the reality that they face, so why not be frank with them about it?  Most of the ex-military women in the film offered similar admonishments.  One young woman interviewed in the film, after being raped, called her father (a military man) and tearfully told him that she was no longer a virgin.  The man tearfully recounted the story for the film (in his military uniform) and related that he told his daughter, "You're still a virgin.  Because it was not your choice."  Characteristically military:  denial.  In my opinion a woman who wants to remain a virgin should not join the U.S. military.  Legalizing commercial sex and relaxing restrictive rules about fraternizing among troops might ease some of the tension, but it might not address this problem of assault and rape of women, because these crimes usually occur between people who are living in close quarters and know each other.  Greater segregation of women from men both in living space and in gender roles would likely be effective, but it would not be politically correct. 

The film is well made and will certainly arouse sympathy for the victims of rape among the civilians who see it, and will undoubtedly mobilize pressure on the military for greater policing.  I think, however, in our current contradictory and convoluted American sexual culture, this problem is going to be endemic in the military as long as the move toward integrating greater numbers women into the service continues.  Seen at the San Francisco International Film Festival on April 23, 2012, Sundance Kabuki Cinema, San Francisco, which, incidentally, is one of the most congenial public movie theaters in the country. 




Notes



1.  Patten, Eileen and Parker, Kim (2011)  Women in the U.S. Military: Growing Share, Distinctive Profile.  Pew Research Center

2.  Kime, Patricia (2011)  Troops Sexual Assault Lawsuit Dismissed.  Army Times.  December 13, 2011.  The film also reports these numbers culled from U.S. government sources. 

3.  O'Grady, Liam;  U.S. District Judge. Cioca v. Rumsfeld.  December 9, 2011   Alexandria , VA  

4.  Zeeland, Steven (1995)  Sailors and Sexual Identity:  Crossing the Line Between "Straight" and "Gay" in the U.S. Navy.  New York:  Harrington Park Press/ Haworth.  p. 63.

5.  Zeeland, p. 250

6.  Zeeland, p. 18

7.  Zeeland, p. 5

8.  Zeeland, p. 5

9.  Zeeland, p. 71

10.  Burg, B. R. (1994)  An American Seafarer in the Age of Sail: The Erotic Diaries of Philip C. Van Buskirk 1851-1870.  New Haven and London:  Yale University Press.
p. xi.

11.  Benemann, William (2006)  Male-Male Intimacy in Early America:  Beyond Romantic Friendships.  New York:  Haworth Press.  p. 57.

12.  Zeeland, p. 241

13.  Zeeland, p. 250-51

14.  Zeeland, p. 251

15.  Burg, 1994,  p. 91

16.  Stephanie Gutmann  (2000)  The Kinder, Gentler Military: Can America's Gender-Neutral Fighting Force Still Win Wars (Lisa Drew Books)  New York:  Scribner.   See Chapter 2. 
The Three Stooges

Directed by Bobby and Peter Farrelly


 

I'll give this a C+.  The plus is for the three actors who played the Stooges:  Sean Hayes (Larry), Chris Diamantopoulos (Moe), and Will Sasso (Curly).  Actually, they get an A.  Those three must have worked very long and hard practicing and honing the antics and characters of the original lunatics, because that's the part of the movie that was good.  They did recreate the look and the spirit of the original Three Stooges very convincingly.  Let's also give an honorable mention to Sofia Vergara (Lydia).   I watched the Three Stooges on a black and white television as a kid growing up in the 1950s and 60s.  I was never a big devotee, but I did enjoy them.  They had a unique, distinctive style that couldn't help but be amusing sometimes.  That hostile, slapstick comedy somehow suited the times.  They were never big on concept or plot, and this movie isn't either.  In fact, I think it tries a little too hard to infuse a story line into the mix.  Too much time is spent on their childhood years in an orphanage run by nuns.  That part of the movie is slow moving and dangerously dull.  But the adult sequences get a lot better and a lot more fun.  The orphanage falls into financial trouble and is being forced to close.  The Stooges try to raise money to save it.  That's the plot.  The financial trouble that the orphanage falls into may be an allusion to the sex scandals and lawsuits that the Catholic church has endured in recent years.  It appears to tie in with the fact that the villain in the film turns out to be a tort lawyer totally devoid of scruples.  He refuses the Stooges' pleas to help save the orphanage and even offers to help them sue it.  There is an oblique implication that the lawsuits against the church that force the closure of orphanages are doing more harm to children than the sex which is being persecuted.  This is not made explicit, but the connection between unscrupulous lawyers, lawsuits, the financial problems of the Catholic Church, and the resultant harm to children might be one of the few subtleties in the film.  There are some interesting twists in the story that tie it all together.  I won't be specific so they will surprise you as you watch.   There seems to be a little bit more sentimentality in this film than I remember from the original Stooges episodes, but perhaps I am forgetting.  The original Stooges were pretty merciless, as I recall, and this film seems a little bit soft around the edges.  They even offer a disclaimer before the credits telling you not to try these stunts at home and show you the harmless rubber mallets and hammers that are used as props -- something most inauthentic and thoroughly modern.  Again, another allusion to the specter of villain lawyers and lawsuits.  There were a few innovations that stayed with me.  The scene in the hospital maternity ward where the Stooges scrap by holding up urinating babies was an unfamiliar novelty, but it was certainly in character.  Also the scene at the golf course where they are selling salmon laid out and flopping around across the fairway grass is memorable for its political incorrectness. If you liked the original Stooges, you will probably like this -- maybe with a few reservations -- but the Three Stooges were always what they were by virtue of the personalities and outrageous antics of the three principals.  There was nothing else to them, and the movie does get this, so I have to call it a success. 


Battleground America:  One Nation Under the Gun

By Jill Lepore   The New Yorker,  April 23, 2012.  pp. 38-47.

  

I wish to call attention to an excellent article on American gun laws by Jill Lepore in the April 23, 2012, issue of The New Yorker.  http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/04/23/120423fa_fact_lepore

It is a survey of the history of gun laws, the NRA, the Second Amendment, and the culture of gun ownership in the United States.  Well researched and well written and illustrated with many examples of important incidents and legal cases that shaped both public opinion and the direction of legislation on gun ownership in America, it is the best concise discussion of this topic I have seen.  I highly recommend it.  If you think things are crazy, she explains how they got this way. 

What she didn't talk about, and which I would like to see, is a story about the manufacturers of guns.  Where are they made? How are they made?  Who profits from them?  A gun is a precision instrument.  It is not that easy to make.  You can grow marijuana or synthesize methamphetamine in your home.  But you can't very easily make a handgun on your kitchen table.  We have about three hundred million guns in the United States, one for every man, woman, and child in the country.  Those guns have to be coming from somewhere.  Someone is making a lot of money manufacturing them.  There are probably relatively few factories turning them out.  It would take many years to cleanse this society of guns, even if we started wholesale confiscation today -- which could never be done.  But the faucet of guns that continually burgeons this supply could be shut off literally overnight.  Factories could be shuttered.  Workers could be retrained.  Swords could be beaten into plowshares.  Once replenishment of the supply of guns is cut, then guns (and ammunition, which fortunately is specific to each gun) would immediately begin to become rarer and more expensive.  The gun problem in America is not insurmountable or hopeless.  It is certainly a formidable undertaking, but one must realize that the landscape of private gun ownership in the United States could change dramatically in a very short time.  Understanding the problem in both its historical and cultural dimensions is an important starting point and Jill Lepore's article provides a clear, comprehensive foundation.  My suggestion is that the discussion shift from the right of individuals to own guns, to curtailing the manufacture and marketing of a deadly product that has no other purpose but to cause death, harm, and mayhem. 
San Francisco Ballet, Program 6

March 31, 2012



The San Francisco Ballet is a world class organization and they proved it again last night with their performance of Program 6, which consists of three separate ballets of about one-half hour each, with two intermissions.  The first is Act III of Raymonda, which is part of a three act ballet originally composed in 1898 in Russia.  The music was composed by Alexander Glazunov and the original choreographer was Marius Petipa.  Rudolph Nureyev brought it to the West in the 1960s and the San Francisco Ballet has been performing Nureyev's adaptation of Act III since 2000.  It is a very conservative ballet: very traditional, and very Russian.  It is not rich in emotional content or narrative line. Costuming, sets, lights and, of course, the dancing are superbly executed, but it was not to my taste.  Visually it is very impressive;  it is a spectacle of dancing technique and a celebration of the human body and its movements.

The third ballet is a new work by composed for the San Francisco Ballet by Scottish Ballet Director Ashley Page entitled Guide to Strange Places.  This is its World Premier.  I couldn't figure out what the title had to do with the ballet.  There is nothing that suggests strangeness and the staging is spare, yielding no sense of place.  This is a casual, lively, energetic ballet set against the music of John Adams, which is well suited to the choreography.  Interaction between the dancers is limited.  It is not an emotive ballet except for this pervasive vivaciousness and upbeat energy that is very winning.  Lights, costumes, and staging are simple but striking.  It ends enigmatically and somewhat abruptly, but overall a pleasing display. 

The highlight of the evening was the middle performance, Raku.  This is a beautifully done, powerfully emotional, imaginatively staged, narrative ballet.  It was created by San Francisco Ballet's Choreographer in Residence, Yuri Possokhov, and set to music composed by the San Francisco Opera and Ballet Orchestra's bassist, Shinji Eshima.  In my eyes, the music makes this ballet.  The music is imaginative and interesting and sets the emotional tone as much as the lighting and the staging, which is also done with excellent taste and great imagination.  The choreography is perfectly suited to the musical background.  It is a loosely told narrative of a monk who suffers an unrequited love for a princess and ends up burning Kyoto's Golden Pavilion to the ground.  But it is not a literal depiction of this series of events.  It is a metaphor that extends beyond the particulars of this story reaching across time and circumstance to emotional and psychological truths not bound to particular events.  The theme of burning reflects a general understanding of the ways in which humans burn with desire, passion, drive and destructive energy throughout life.  It is a profound and ambitious artistic objective and it is resoundingly successful.  This is a dance performance that works in every way that one could hope for.  I would say it is one of the best dance performances I have seen for its beauty, its imaginative staging, the seamless integration of music and dance, its physical execution, and its psychological depth.