When Operas Attack

The German Opera of Berlin (Deutsche Oper Berlin) has pulled a production of Mozart’s Idomeneo from its fall schedule on the advice of police. The production had included a scene featuring the severed heads of Mohammed, Jesus, and the Buddha, and the police worried that Muslims might get violent about it.

If you are familiar with Idomeneo you might wonder how Mohammed, Jesus, and the Buddha wandered into it, since those illustrious figures are not in the libretto. The New York Times has a photograph of a rehearsal — the chorus is dressed in black suits and “blues brothers” porkpie hats. (This is what passes for creativity in opera; take a story based on Greek myth and dress everybody up in the wrong costumes.) I assume the green guy is Neptune, who is in the libretto, and the woman dressed in the black suit (but no hat) is probably a mezzo-soprano playing the role of Idamante, son of Idomeneo, King of Crete. The role was written for a castrato, who are hard to come by these days, and so opera companies usually settle for a mezzo. An occasional tenor will take on the role, but I suspect the vocal range the part requires is not comfortable for most tenors.

In this opera Idomeneo is supposed to sacrifice Idamante to Neptune, but (after about three hours of other stuff) at the end an Oracle says Idomeneo doesn’t have to sacrifice Idamante and everybody lives happily ever after. I wonder if the production in question has a new scene in which Idomeneo sacrificed Mohammed et al. to placate Neptune. As I said, it’s not in the libretto, and it doesn’t actually make sense within the plot, but what the hey.

Today there’s some grumbling on the blogosphere about “political correctness” and how “artistic freedom” is being sacrificed to placate Muslims. To which I say, try performing this critter in the Bible Belt. As soon as the Holy Rollers hear about Jesus’s severed head the opera house is as good as vandalized, if not torched. And every Mozart CD in Alabama — all six of ’em — would be tossed on a bonfire, along with video cassettes and DVDs of “Amadeus.”

For that matter, Madonna recently risked arrest in Germany by performing some techno pop song while suspended crucifixion-style on a mirrored cross, wearing a crown of thorns. In The Netherlands, a priest called in a bomb threat in an attempt to stop the show, and some Russian Orthodox priests declared a “Holy Inquisition” against Madonna and other slanderers of holy imagery. Other Russian believers speared a poster of Madonna — sounds hostile to me.

Get this

The German authorities will make up their own minds on the crucifixion matter this weekend and also on whether the giant screen, which flashes images ranging from the pope, Osama Bin Laden, US President George W. Bush, Chinese leader Mao Zedong to Italian fascist dictator Benito Mussolini, is in bad taste.

Somebody tell the righties that Madonna compared Bush to Bin Laden, Mao, and Mussolini while touring Europe, then watch Madonna get Dixie Chicked.

Certainly it’s wrong to stand in the way of artistic and political expression, but it doesn’t seem to bother the Right unless the ones standing in the way are Muslim.

But what I want to know is — if this Idomeneo production is supposed to be so creative, why bother making Neptune look like Neptune? I would have put Neptune in a red sequined gown and feather boa and have him sing his role while perched on top of a grand piano. Even better, make him a Judy Garland impersonator. That would have been creative.

Update: La Lulu goes on about how those awful Muslims hate everything without noticing that it wasn’t Muslims who cancelled the production, but the opera company, on advice from police who feared the production might incite violence. Also, the Times story linked above says that when the production was first performed, “it aroused controversy among Muslims and Christians.”

Long Live the King

A fictional docudrama made for British television features the assassination of President Bush in October 2007.

Death of a President, shot in the style of a retrospective documentary, looks at the effect the assassination of Bush has on America in light of its ‘War on Terror’.

The 90 minutes feature explores who could have planned the murder, with a Syrian-born man wrongly put in the frame.

Peter Dale, head of More4, which is due to air the film on October 9, said the drama was a “thought-provoking critique” of contemporary US society.

He said: “It’s an extraordinarily gripping and powerful piece of work, a drama constructed like a documentary that looks back at the assassination of George Bush as the starting point for a very gripping detective story.

“It’s a pointed political examination of what the War on Terror did to the American body politic.

“I’m sure that there will be people who will be upset by it but when you watch it you realise what a sophisticated piece of work it is.

“It’s not sensationalist, or simplistic but a very thought-provoking, powerful drama. I hope people will see that the intention behind it is good.”

The film will premier at the Toronto Film Festival in September and was written and directed by Gabriel Range.

Before Michelle Malkin sees this and uses up the world’s supply of exclamation points blogging about it, let me say that I sincerely do not want President Bush to be assassinated.

I’m not saying it was wrong to make “Death of a President,” which of course I haven’t seen (and don’t expect to anytime soon, as I sincerely doubt it will be shown on American television). The work may or may not be good drama and may or may not make some excellent points about American political culture. I’m just saying I don’t want Bush to be assassinated. Really, truly. Here are the top ten reasons why:

10. Regular television programming would be pre-empted for days, except maybe for the Super Bowl.

9. News coverage of the assassination and state funeral would shine the rosiest light possible on the President’s memory, causing some viewers to think maybe he wasn’t so bad, after all. (In fact, this might be the only way Bush could get his approval numbers over 50 percent again.)

8. Darryl Worley would record a song about it.

7. For the next several months you wouldn’t be able to pass a supermarket tabloid rack without seeing pictures of Bush and Jesus — together forever.

6. You’d have to listen to your wingnut father-in-law rant about it all through Thanksgiving dinner.

5. The Right collectively would become even more paranoid than it is already.

4. For the rest of your life, you’d have to listen to people referring to Bush as a “martyred president.”

3. The assassination would fuel a whole new generation of conspiracy theorists.

2. Bush wouldn’t live long enough to see what historians will write about his presidency.

1. Dick Cheney.

Need I say more?

Update: Gracious, poor Rick Moran of Right Wing Nut House came down with the vapors over my post, above, which I figured even a rightie would recognize as mere silliness. (Some people have no sense of humor.)

He also says “Malkin has a tour de force roundup of the history of lefty assassination fantasies.” So I took a look and was stunned to see the first entry: “Sarah Vowell’s best-selling murder travelogue of assassinated Republican presidents, Assassination Vacation.”

Wow, talk about distortion! Vowell’s book describes her travels — something of a pilgrimmage — visiting monuments, museums, and myriad historical sites connected to the first three presidential assassinations — Lincoln, Garfield, and McKinley. As it happens these guys were all Republicans, but it is hardly Vowell’s fault that no Democratic presidents were assassinated in the 19th century. Vowell’s schtick is to find little-known or fogotten places and facts and dredge them out of the history memory hole, and Kennedy’s assassination is too recent — and still too much discussed — to have given her much to write about. It’s funny but also thoughtful and respectful — affectionate, even — toward the presidents she discusses. This book is especially recommended for history nerds.

If this is the best Malkin can come up with in the way of “lefty assassination fantasies,” that pretty much proves Dave Neiwert’s contention that righties express wishes for death or physical harm of their political opponents much more often than lefties do.

Her other examples were :

* A novel I never heard of by an author I never heard of — Nicholson Baker’s Checkpoint. I cannot comment as I have not read the novel. I googled “Nicholson Baker” but found no clues about his political opinions.

* Something Randi Rhodes said in 2004.

* A comment by a Guardian columnist, Charlie Brooker, also from 2004:

On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod’s law dictates he’ll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed, with no benevolent deity to watch over and save us. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr – where are you now that we need you?

I’ll let that stand without comment. The rest of Malkin’s “evidence” consists of four examples of “art” — a poster, a T-shirt, a button, and a hand-drawn protest sign — wishing violence on the President. I have never seen these anywhere but on Malkin’s blog.

And that’s it. Hell, you can get more examples of rightie assassination fantasies from Ann Coulter alone.

Have I mentioned before that righties are pathetic? I believe I have.

Homebodies

Here’s something I didn’t know, written by a Brit:

… we don’t really know America or Americans. This is because, overwhelmingly, the Americans we meet have passports; over 80% of US citizens, however, do not, and so have never travelled outside their own continent.

80 percent? Is it that high? Possibly. I would have guessed more than half, maybe 55 to 60 percent. On the other hand, my impression of Europeans is that they zip off to other countries as casually as a New Yorker goes to the malls in New Jersey.

This may help to explain the other unfathomable mystery of the US: why they developed their own national participative sports, American football and baseball.

Association football has, of course, been growing in popularity in the US. But think what an impact it would have if football were the national sport and the US fielded a really strong side for the World Cup. It could do more to end US isolationism than a thousand politicians. …

I think he’s right. I also think our isolationism and ignorance of the rest of the world is going to be our undoing. Or part of our undoing, anyway.

Happy News Roundup

Congratulations to Italy on winning the World Cup! “A joy so big I have never felt,” said coach Marcello Lippi.

The photograph of the sun beaming down on an Italian flag is one I took early this year in Tuckaho, New York, from outside the Generoso Pope Foundation building. I had planned to send it to Michelle Malkin to get her worked up over il riconquistare — the nefarious plot to claim America as Italian territory in the name of Amerigo Vespucci, Giovanni da Verrazzano and Cristoforo de Colombo — but I never got around to it.

If I’d only realized this was an omen of a World Cup victory and placed bets then … oh, well.

Getting all the happy news out of the way early so I can go back to snarking — Paul Krugman writes that the economy of the world’s greatest city — New York, New York — is thriving.

Update: Via Avedon — some great editorial cartoons.

The American Way

Jonah Goldberg is pissed at Superman.

In the new film “Superman Returns,” the Man of Steel no longer stands for “truth, justice and the American way.” These days he is dedicated, according to the movie’s promotional materials, to “truth, justice and all that is good.” Though, in the movie, the phrase gets edited down by Daily Planet Editor Perry White to “truth, justice and all that stuff.” Typical editorial arrogance, if you ask me!

More likely a typical marketing decision by a studio that needs international box office to make a profit.

Goldberg tells us that “conservative talk radio has surely gone overboard in bashing the film,” which I say is one good reason to go see it (although there are others). But even though Goldberg admits the “American Way” line might irritate some overseas audiences, he sniffs about a “cosmopolitan” outlook “that sees national boundaries and geographic loyalties as quaint and even backward.” And taking a swipe at the majority opinion in Hamdan that stipulates the U.S. must honor its old commitment to the Geneva Conventions, Goldberg says there’s nothing wrong with kicking off the shackles of international opinion and being the Lone Ranger.

Maybe not, but as I recall the Lone Ranger was into saving innocent people from bad guys and then riding into the sunset. The innocent people weren’t left wondering, three years later, when the heck he was ever gonna leave. Nor did the Lone Ranger run an alternative secret criminal justice system, but instead turned bad guys over to the public lawful authorities. And riding around with that Tonto guy whiffs of a little multiculturalism, if you ask me.

But in spite of himself, Goldberg stumbles on to some truth in his last sentence:

What is disturbing is that “the American way” now seems to have become code for arrogant unilateralism that falls somewhere outside truth, justice and all that is good.

Well, yes. And whose fault is that?

Speaking of old film heroes and the American Way — remember Hopalong Cassidy? If you do, you may be, um, as old as I am. But never mind. I ran into this on the Hopalong Cassidy web site:

Time Magazine in 1950 said, “Boyd made Hoppy a veritable Galahad of the range, a soft spoken paragon who did not smoke, drink or kiss girls, who tried to capture the rustlers instead of shooting them, and who always let the villain draw first if gunplay was inevitable.” Boyd himself said, “I played down the violence, tried to make Hoppy an admirable character and I insisted on grammatical English.”

That’s how the American Way was portrayed in the early 1950s, when the Hopalong Cassidy films and television series were popular around the globe. Back in the day, the American Way meant holding true to your values and doing the right thing even if the bad guys are doing the wrong thing. Now the American Way seems to be shoot first, and ask questions later. We’ve also turned We’re the good guys because we do what’s right into We’re the good guys, so whatever we do is right.

Yep; “arrogant unilateralism that falls somewhere outside truth, justice and all that is good” hits the mark, I’d say. As Superman Returns scriptwriter Dan Harris said, “I don’t think the American Way means what it meant in 1945.”

Super Film Review

Some of the blog guys are in disagreement over the new Superman film. Oliver Willis liked it and gave it 4/4 stars. Ezra Klein disagrees. I saw it yesterday and am voting with Oliver on this one. I was thoroughly entertained. It’s especially fun to watch on an IMAX screen; some scenes are in 3D. Way cool.

It can be argued that the film is more of a romantic fantasy and less of a comic-book action-adventure epic than some might like, although there are plenty of action sequences. Some reviewers argued that the colors were too muted — the cape was more dark mauve than red, for example — but I agree with Stephanie Zacharek’s review in Salon (and I don’t agree with Zacharek all that often) —

This is a beautifully made picture, a modern-day fable marked by a strong sense of continuity with the past, and not just the recent past: The art-deco-influenced production design, the lighting, and some of the camera work carry echoes of German Expressionism. The costumes (they’re by Louise Mingenbach) are ’40s movie-star garb filtered through a ’70s sensibility — a way of honoring the sartorial vibe of Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder in the earlier movies, and also of tracing the Superman story to its just-pre-World War II roots. When Kate Bosworth, as Lois Lane, changes out of her Rosalind Russell tweed suit to attend the dinner at which she’ll be awarded a Pulitzer Prize (her winning essay bears the title, transparently redolent of heartbreak, “Why the World Doesn’t Need Superman”), her dress is a full-length ripple of dark silk worthy of Barbara Stanwyck circa “The Lady Eve.” Unlike so many contemporary Hollywood movies, which strut into our theaters as if they believe they’ve sprung fully formed from the head of Zeus (or maybe even just Scott Rudin), “Superman Returns” knows where it comes from.

Maybe the film’s style is a girl and/or gay thing.

Kate Bosworth’s portrayal of Lois Lane was panned in some reviews, but as one of the few people on the planet who didn’t care for Margot Kidder in the earlier films — she mostly got on my nerves — I was OK with Bosworth. Poor Brandon Routh had the perilous job of following the beloved Christopher Reeve, but I think he managed as well as anyone could have. The best part of Reeve’s portrayal of Superman, IMO, was the way he could shift personas from Clark Kent to Superman while barely moving a muscle, and Routh didn’t quite capture that. On the other hand, Routh’s Superman persona was more emotionally vulnerable than Reeve’s, which hinted at a more complex personality under the surface. And Kevin Spacey’s Lex Luthor is a hoot.

Update: See also Detroit Free Press review, Newsweek review.

9/11 Belongs to All of Us

Chris Bowers has had a beef with the marketers/distributors of “Flight 93.”

I am the manager of the Liberal Blog Advertising Network, which has 86 member blogs that combine for 17.78 million page views per week. It is the second largest advertising network at Blogads. From what I can tell, not a single blog in that network features the Untied 93 advertisement that apparently was purchased on all 103 members of the Conservative Blog Advertising Network. That network was 4.37 million page views per week, just under 25% of our traffic.

Why did the marketers of United Flight 93 decide to only advertise on conservative political blogs? The Liberal Blog Advertising Network is four times as large, and is even a 20-30% better deal per page view (or CPM, to use the relevant industry term). Do they think that attack is only relevant to red America? Do they think that only Republicans were attacked on 9/11? Do they think that only conservatives remember that day? Do they think that the only people who took action on United Flight 93 had voted for George Bush one year earlier?

Chris updates and says the ads will now run on liberal blogs, too.

Set This Circus Down

While we’re talking about New Orleans today — ABC News reports:

Faith Hill and Tim McGraw — two stars who usually stay out of politics — blasted the Hurricane Katrina cleanup effort, with Hill calling the slow progress in Louisiana and Mississippi “embarrassing” and “humiliating.”

The country music artists — who are natives of the storm-ravaged states — were at times close to tears, and clearly angry when the subject of Katrina came up during a news conference today. They had met with reporters in Nashville to promote their upcoming Soul2Soul II Tour, but when asked about the hurricane cleanup, the stars pulled no punches. …

… McGraw specifically criticized President Bush. “There’s no reason why someone can’t go down there who’s supposed to be the leader of the free world … and say, ‘I’m giving you a job to do and I’m not leaving here until it’s done. And you’re held accountable, and you’re held accountable, and you’re held accountable.

“‘This is what I’ve given you to do, and if it’s not done by the time I get back on my plane, then you’re fired and someone else will be in your place. ‘” …

The All Spin Zone: “Don’t look for Bush’s base to go demonizing Faith Hill and Tim McGraw like they did the Dixie Chicks.” Facing South: “When the King and Queen of Country say your Katrina policy is “bullshit,” you’ve got problems. And just watch, they won’t get the Dixie Chicks treatment — they’re too popular, and the public is with them 100% on this issue.”

Oh, but don’t count wingnuttery out. The smearing of McGraw and Hill are well underway over at Free Republic and rightie blog NewsBusters. Sample comments from the Freep:

I’m a big country music fan, but always suspected these two were a couple of lefties. In the words of Laura Ingraham, “shut up and sing”.

The dumb arse Tim thinks Clinton is the greatest President ever. Nuff said.

Fox News said these two are getting ready to kick off a concert tour. I just did a search on Google and it’s true. They have a tour called Soul2Soul starting in April and running through August. They must be trying to get some free publicity to push their tour.

These two should be careful or they’ll go the way of the Dixie Chix (excommunicated from Country Music).

I won’t buy her (or McGraw’s) CDs because they are Lefties.

Hopefully the country music radio stations will pick up on this and Dixie Chick their arses.

What is it with fascists and music?

Avocado?

I know you’re all waiting for my Oscar commentary. I really did stay up and watch the show, even though I didn’t much care who won what this year. My observations:

Nobody else is saying this, so I’m saying it. J-Lo’s dress was ugly. It was an ugly color — reminded me of overripe avocado. Back in the 1960s they used to make appliances that color, and it was ugly then, too. And the way the fabric draped made her hips look bigger. Also, she needs to find a happy medium between Big Hair and Old Schoolteacher Bun.

Blondes should not wear nude-color gowns. They end up looking sort of monotone. Naomi Watts’s dress was an especially bad choice for that reason. It might be a pretty dress but the cameras weren’t picking up detail, and the effect was, unfortunately, unfortunate. She looked better in King Kong.

Charlize Theron’s dress was odd, but she overcame the handicap with sheer force of beautiousness.

I didn’t have a favorite gown this year, but other than the above-mentioned J-Lo and Watts, nobody I saw was a real disaster, either.

Also: Everybody in Hollywood should take personality lessons from George Clooney.

I thought Jon Stewart was fine. Andy Dehnart is right — the audience didn’t “get” him.

Well, that’s about it.