Flashback Friday: The "triumph" of Leni Riefenstahl

Finally, Riefenstahl.

It's been so long since I started this thread that's it's difficult to recall what the point of it all was supposed to be. (And I'm glad I haven't been kicked off the blog for being so late in getting this up!)

But this whole discussion started with the death of Elisabeth Schwarzkopf last month. As was mentioned back then, virtually every obit of the great opera star mentioned her past association with the Nazi party in WW2 Germany. And I supposed it's a natural segueway, once you've talked about Schwarzkopf, to look at the lives of two other prominent German artists: Leni Riefenstahl and Richard Wagner. (Günter Grass doesn't really count, since he wasn't part of my original plan and, anyway, I've already talked about him enough.)

And in looking at their lives, we continue to be drawn to the central question of the discussion: what is the relationship between the artist and the art? As Roger Ebert has noted, it raises the “classic question of the contest between art and morality: Is there such a thing as pure art, or does all art make a political statement?"

Leni Riefenstahl was one of the great film documentarians of the 20th century. From Wikipedia: (I'll quote liberally here, since I have no desire to get this blog tied up in a plagerism accusation:

Riefenstahl's techniques, such as moving cameras, the use of telephoto lenses to create a distorted perspective, aerial photography, and revolutionary approach to the use of music and cinematography, have earned Triumph recognition as one of the greatest propaganda films in history. [...] The film was popular in the Third Reich and elsewhere, and has continued to influence movies, documentaries, and commercials to this day, even as it raises the question over the dividing line between "art and morality."

But, as you might have gathered from the above paragraph, there’s that Nazi thing again. Of all Riefenstahl's documentaries, none is perhaps as famous - and infamous - as Triumph of the Will. It is a magnificent, terrible film of a horrible story - the Nazis and their Nuremberg rallies during the '30s. And in telling that horrible story, it also ensured that filmmaking would never be the same again.

Film historians have seen Riefenstahl's influence in movies ever since. Star Wars, Citizen Kane, Gladiator, Lord of the Rings - all bear the marks of Riefenstahl's style. The famous opening scene of Triumph, in which the camera moves through the clouds to capture an aerial shot of the city of Nuremberg (to the music of Wagner, naturally) must have influenced Wim Wenders' opening of Wings of Desire. The sports documentarian Bud Greenspan, one of the finest filmmakers of the 20th century (Ken Burns could take a chapter from him), considers her one of the greats.

It's an assertion few would dispute, in the academic sense. But can’t you detect just the smallest bit of embarrassment whenever one praises the work of Riefenstahl? True, Triumph of the Will is a staple of many “best all-time” lists, but there’s this sense that even when we praise Riefenstahl, we must immediately apologize or explain away the praise, lest we fall under guilt-by-association. The closer we get to her work, the more we edge away from it. It’s not likely you’d hear Seinfeld emerge from the theatre saying, “It’s about Nazis! Not that there’s anything wrong with that.” (Warning: Do not insert any Soup Nazi jokes here.)

No, you’ll never hear anyone say there’s nothing wrong with being a Nazi. In our time the Nazi brand is, as I've said before, the Scarlet Swastika, an accusation so accursed that its use has become widespread, indiscriminate, a self-parody. And yet it is a charge that carries power, a negative sort of prestige, a stigma that taints whatever it touches. And we ask ourselves if we should be ashamed by our admiration and praise of the artist’s work, if we can morally separate the ideology of the artist from the art itself.

Riefenstahl’s work does not allow us that luxury. The subject matter of Triumph of the Will is in your face, and you can't ignore it. As the Wikipedia bio puts it, "it is nearly impossible to separate the subject from the artist behind it." She “claimed that she was naïve about the Nazis when she made it and had no knowledge of Hitler's genocidal policies. She also pointed out that Triumph contains ‘not one single anti-Semitic word’“; but it is difficult (although not impossible) to conceive of her as both ingénue and naïve girl, the brilliant and innovative filmmaker who was still a babe in the woods when it came to world politics. This is what she would have liked you to believe, but her actions often belie that contention. Roger Ebert points out, "the very absence of anti-Semitism in Triumph of the Will looks like a calculation; excluding the central motif of almost all of Hitler's public speeches must have been a deliberate decision to make the film more efficient as propaganda." And so, given all this, we’re tempted to see in her films things that aren’t really there, images that dance before us like the ghosts from black & white TV. Only these are real, the ghosts of Hitler’s victims that only become clearer as the picture is drawn into sharper focus.

Therefore, as viewers do we punish the filmmaker because of the subject of her films? Do we hold Riefenstahl accountable for her Nazi associations? And if so, do we also apply the same standards to Sergei Eisenstein, who exploited Russian nationalistic pride in Potemkin and Alexander Nevsky? (Yes, I know Eisenstein had his quarrels with the authorities, but large families often do that.) Eisenstein is often ranked in the pantheon of filmmaking, Potemkin appearing on most ten-best lists, but I rarely see him carrying around the baggage that accompanies Riefenstahl. And we won't even get into the almost-paranoid, conspiracy-laden propaganda of liberal filmmakers like Oliver Stone?

Now, it's true that Eisenstein wasn't a documentarian as was Riefenstahl. Nonetheless, his movies were fraught with nationalistic fervor, clearly designed to influence and inspire the viewer. (The Communists, in fact, thought Eisenstein worried too much about things like art and budgeting, and wanted even more propaganda in the content.) As for Stone - well, we know most of his films have an agenda.

Some like to pair up Triumph of the Will with Frank Capra’s direct answer to them, the Why We Fight series of films. (And, by the way, given how anti-American Hollywood has become, it would have been interesting to see how Capra's reputation might have suffered had he been young enough when he made this series. Surely in the Hollywood of the late 60s through today, he would have been seen as a toady for the government.)

In fact, however, the true companion to Riefenstahl’s masterwork might be D.W. Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation. This truly was a landmark of filmmaking, but most today remember it only as a racist piece of propaganda, glorifying the Ku Klux Klan. True, perhaps, but Griffith's influence, like Riefenstahl's, cannot be denied. True also that Griffith, like Riefenstahl, is held at arms' length by most.

So what's the point here? It's not an apology for Leni Riefenstahl (or D.W. Griffith, for that matter). It's merely an observation on how we allow our politics to color the way we see things. As I've asserted in the past, it is hard to believe that Riefensthal would be held in such contempt had the Triumph in question been Lenin's October Revolution.

As we watch the ridiculous accusations of Nazism that are so commonplace nowadays across the political blogosphere, and perhaps most absurdly from the Muslims who brand the Jews with the contemptuous tag, we are reminded that Nazism is the singular golden sin, the mark from which its bearers cannot recover. It is reminiscent of the "unforgivable sin" that Christ warns us of, though most of those wielding it would fail to recognize that analogy since they don't recognize the source.

National Socialism keeps us in a trance, as perhaps it should. It holds the figures of history hostage, as perhaps it might. But we do not diminish the horror of the truth it represents to assert also that the word "Nazi" is the crown jewel of political correctness, the golden spike to be driven through the heart, the one word that guarantees the discrediting of its intended. Some would wear the title as a badge of honor, an ideology to be embraced, others are shamed with a scarlet letter and their lips burn with Judas' kiss of betrayal, and still others feel the sting of its indiscriminant application.

But while Schwarzkopf shrugged off the label, and Riefenstahl tried to run from it, Richard Wagner might have welcomed it with open arms. But that's for another time.

Originally published September 18, 2006

Happy Turkey Day!

Yep, it's that time again, isn't it? How time flies the older you get.  But the memories never get old, and today is the start of the best five weeks or so of the year.

So on behalf of Drew, Steve and Bobby, I'd like to wish all of you the happiest and most blessed of Thanksgivings.  Enjoy the parades, the football, the turkey, and the nap afterwards.  See you back here tomorrow!

Thanksgiving controversies

Whew! Still frustrated over the "Ninth Circuit East" (thanks to the court packing) that overturned our state's Constitution in favour of allowing the DC area to push sin acceptance when 78% of our state didn't allow it.

And to consider there's a Stampeder secondary from Manning, just up the road via US 301 and Interstate 95, crossing Lake Marion, in Clarendon County (DB Fred Bennett), I believe there is rooting interest in my neck of the woods in the Grey Cup for Calgary, though too there is for Hamilton (DE Eric Norwood) in the area.  All the derby match talk over this weekend, then the next day is Grey Cup with interest with a popular defensive lineman!

And this before I can discuss the report on the news that too many stores are open Thanksgiving Day Thursday, with complaints that regular workers at department stores are opening on the day itself, not even a "Carrie hasn't hated herself for loving you," as I said last year, as stores are working to avoid the Krzyzewskiville effects that a close friend understands, to start sales during the day, even when many of us are running on Thanksgiving (I am pondering either a 5km or a 8km road race -- haven't made my decision as of this time, but the longer race is enticing because of a Thanksgiving day class at a fitness studio with friends).

Thanksgiving work days were originally designed for sporting goods stores because of their organising of timing and scoring for the numerous running events -- last year, 870,000 crossed finish lines for running events on Thanksgiving Day, including someone that may be very well known in Tulsa, taking show.    Many events support local charities, and as the Wall Street Journal notes, Thanksgiving has become the day for fitness, and considering I don't have an appetite after a hard run.  Twelve Turkey Trots later, I am pondering returning to a 8km race because the challenge of the short race is too easy at times, and with 16 days before a marathon, it might be better to go longer.

As for working on Thanksgiving, families are becoming busier and have less time to cook.  Many grocery stores have full delicatessens and bakeries, often producing rotisserie chickens for families to pick up after work for dinner or before work for lunch.  That, along with many families coming from long distances and stress, along with the long hours required to make Thanksgiving dinners, has them unable to have time for Thanksgiving dinners, so grocers adopted the home improvement stores' DIFM model (Do It For Me) for home improvement projects (as compared to DIY, Do It Yourself -- the terms DIY and DIFM are listed in a major home improvement chain's shareholder documents I receive annually as a shareholder) for their Thanksgiving menu options.  Grocers' business in the DIFM market has become an increasing source of revenue, and adding Thanksgiving hours for picking up DIFM dinners, department stores located next to grocers decided to open in order to take advantage of DIFM dinners being picked up by families.  Some restaurants (Bojangles' and Maurice's) have added fuel to the fire by adding DIFM meal pickups.  But it was the exploiting of the next-door grocers' DIFM dinners that led to the department stores opening earlier also.

The question I ask after watching commentary of Thanksgiving Day sales:  Has the rise of the DIFM Thanksgiving dinner market resulted in more stores opening for Thanksgiving specials in order to give those who are there to pick up the DIFM dinners at the grocer that is often next door to start shopping now, especially if the DIFM dinner is picked up Thanksgiving morning?

Opera Wednesday - Copland's The Tender Land

There are few composers more American than Aaron Copland, so on the eve of this most American holiday, here's part one of Michigan Opera Theatre's production of Copland's 1954 opera The Tender Land, conducted by the composer.  It's part one of 12, so if you like it keep following the links!

The future of religious freedom in America

I'm just catching up on things that have been sitting around for awhile, so the half-dozen or so of you who are regular readers might have already read this elsewhere, but I found it interesting.  Rod Dreher reported here on a conference regarding the future of religious freedom in the United States, sponsored by the magazine First Things.  This isn't the first time First Things has gotten into this kind of provocative discussion; many years ago, I recall them hosting a symposium on the end of democracy in America.

These discussions often seem extreme, and yet how many things that once seemed equally extreme are taken for granted today?  No, the time to discuss them is now, before they reach critical mass, but to look at them with a level head, rather than a Chicken Little sky-is-falling mentality.  Don't panic - but on the other hand, don't poo-poo it either.

Anyway, Dreher links back to a past article asking whether or not Catholicism and liberal democracy are fundamentally irreconcilable.  It's a discomforting question, one that makes you uneasy regardless of how you feel about it.  It's well worth your time reading all the articles linked to here, and thinking about your response to it.  Despite the results of the elections a couple of weeks ago, which might broadly be considered a victory for conservatism - which, though not to be equated with religious freedom, nonetheless represents an ideology perhaps less hostile to religion - I remain vaguely pessimistic about the whole thing.  We already know that the America in which I grew up is gone forever, let alone the America that our forefathers remember.  The questions remain - how far gone?  And what, in fact, does America stand for anymore?  Can you stand for it as well, or do you feel like a stranger in your own strange land?

Make no mistake that I'm still thankful for living in this country, which may well have the worst system in which to live except for all the rest, but what will the future bring for us?  And are we prepared to make a stand for our beliefs?  Who, indeed, knows?

Hamilton's big day

CELEBRATING HAMILTONS: F1 CHAMP LEWIS (LEFT), TIGER-CAT HERO BRANDON BANKS (RIGHT)

It was a good day in the sports world yesterday if your name was Hamilton.  It started early in the morning, when Lewis Hamilton took the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix to win his second Formula 1 World Championship, and continued a few hours later when the Hamilton Tiger-Cats defeated the Montreal Alouettes to advance to the Canadian Football League's Grey Cup Championship.

It was a good day if, like me, you're a fan of somewhat marginal sporting events.  American Formula 1 fans are a small but hearty group, and the title battle between Hamilton and his Mercedes teammate Nico Rosberg seemed destined to come down to this final race - as indeed it did.  The math was simple* - if Rosberg won the race, as he was favored to do, Hamilton had to finish second to take the championship.  Anything less, and the title was Rosberg's.

*Somewhat misleading, thanks to the stupidity of awarding double points for the season's final race.  Hamilton, winner of 10 races during the year, as opposed to Rosberg's five, would have had a much larger margin of error had the points allocation been that of every other race.  It goes to show that auto racing should not be treated like coupons at a grocery store.

Truth be told, I've found the season less than enthralling.  The duel between the Mercedes drivers didn't captivate me the way it did others; the Mercs were so dominant during the course of the season that one was tempted to think of the cars as far more important than their drivers.  Mercedes clinched the constructor's championship several races ago, and there was never any real threat from other teams.  I'm not in the minority in thinking this season a disappointment, and the continuing chaos about the financial status of the sport doesn't give one much encouragement for the future; nevertheless, there was a race to be run yesterday morning, a championship to be decided.

Hamilton ran a magnificent race.  He sprinted out to the lead from the start, getting a tremendous jump over the pole-sitter Rosberg, and was never headed.  I'd thought that Hamilton's best bet would have been to avoid Rosberg, tuck into second place, and run a safe race to the end.  It still would have been a smart strategy, but it's not what Hamilton did, and I'm in no position to disagree with his dominant performance.  Rosberg ran into mechanical difficulties in the second half of the race, eventually dropping out of the top ten, and Hamilton held off a late challenge from Felipe Massa to take his 11th victory of the season, and the World Championship.

Dominant car or not, there's no doubt that Hamilton is a fabulous driver, and yesterday's race proved - if any further proof was necessary - that the best man won.

***

Nearing the halfway point of the CFL season, the Hamilton Tiger-Cats were mired in a terrible funk, with a record of 1-6.  It wasn't quite as bad as it might seem; the entire Eastern Division was so bad that 1-6 was still enough to be in contention for first place.  As if that weren't bad enough, the Ti-Cats' new stadium, Tim Horton's Field, was behind schedule, and the team had to play its first three home games at a small college field that afforded them - nothing.

But on Labour Day, the stadium finally opened, and the 'Cats fortunes changed.  They went undefeated at Tim Horton's, winning all six of their regular season games there, and went 8-3 down the stretch, including a must-win against Montreal in the final game of the season*, to finish at 9-9.  Not that impressive, perhaps, but good enough to finish in first place, earning a first-round bye in the playoffs.  Yesterday, their opponent in the East Finals, with a spot in the Grey Cup on the line, was again Montreal.

*Had the Ti-Cats lost that final game, they would have finished at 8-10, and the Toronto Argonauts would have slipped into the final playoff position.  It was that tight.

The game was played in Hamilton, before a sold-out crowd, and although Montreal jumped out to an early lead, the feeling was that this was going to be Hamilton's day.  More specifically, it was Brandon Banks' day.  The Hamilton punt-returner had one touchdown called back because of a penalty, but it wasn't enough to stop him, as he returned two subsequent punts for touchdowns in a tremendous performance that led the Tabbies to a 40-24 victory, and a trip to Vancouver for next week's Grey Cup.

It's the second Cup appearance in a row for Hamilton, which was routed last year by Saskatchewan, in a forgettable game.  They'll be facing the Western champion Calgary Stampeders, who finished the regular season with a league-best record of 15-3, blew off Edmonton in yesterday's nightcap (43-18), and will be heavy favorites to take the Cup next Sunday.  But for us Hamilton fans who believe in signs, we have a few things going for us.  The last time the Tiger-Cats won the Grey Cup, in 1999, they were also playing in their second consecutive championship, having lost the year before.  And that 1999 game was also played in Vancouver, against the same Calgary Stampeders, who were favored to win.  The Tiger-Cats defeated them 32-21 that year - will history repeat itself this season?

After all, if yesterday tells us anything, it's that you shouldn't bet against anyone named Hamilton.

Throwback Thursday: Ben Franklin's America

If you've read any of my blogs for any length of time at all, you'll know that I'm constantly - well, surprised is not the word; maybe illuminated - to see how true it is that there's nothing new under the sun. H.W. Brands' brilliant biography of Benjamin Franklin, The First American contains a very interesting quote, a passage (on page 218 of the hardvoer version) I find quite - illuminating:

Few of their children in the country learn English; they import many books from Germany. . . . The signs in our streets have inscripitons in both languages, and in some places only German. They begin of late to make all their bonds and other legal writings in their own language, which (though I think it ought not to be) are allowed good in our courts, where the German business so increases that there is continual need of interpreters; and I suppose in a few years they will also be necessary in the Assembly, to tell one half of our legislators what the other half says.

Now, you have to admit this is very interesting. I'm sure some will read Franklin's words and see comfort that our current immigration situation will amount to nothing. "After all," they might say, "we've always been worried about newcomers to America - even in Franklin's day. And everything's turned out all right." And I suppose there's something to that. The study of immigration in American is a fascinating one, as we see how different groups assimilated into American culture, gaining power, influence and acceptance.

But when I read this paragraph I see something else; the recognition that there actually was a distinctive American culture, even though at the time (early 1750s) America was a mere British colony. And that the Founding Fathers had, even before the founding of the country, an appreciation of that culture and a concern that it should be preserved. (And we shouldn't be surprised that Franklin would pick up on that, for in the debate about American independence he argued that "We're a new nationality . . . we require a new nation.")

With a few minor substitutions, Franklin's words could be spoken today by anyone with a mind to do so, and they'd be just as accurate. Yes, it's true we've faced this problem before - even predating American independence. But throughout the history of the country we've placed a premium on preserving that culture - enhancing it with contributions from other cultures, to be sure, but with a parallel process of assimilation. I know all the stories about German and Polish and Italian families where the native tongue was the only one spoken in the household, and where the sons and daughters became the first to learn the new language - but the point is, they learned it. There was an agreed-upon belief that it was a good thing for them to speak English, that it was essential to their chance to succeed in the "land of opportunity." I'm not sure I see a common belief in that today.

The Founders believed in a unified language, a common culture. They might be Virginians or Pennsylvanians or New Englanders, but they were also Americans. And there was something specific about being an American. Franklin was famous for saying that if we didn't hang together, we'd all hang separately. I wonder what he would think today; would he see a nation that, despite its political differences, was held together by common threads - shared language, culture, memories? Or would the vision be that of the Balkanization of America, a country being divided along cultural and ethnic lines, people with little in common and even less desire to have anything in common? We aren't hanging together anymore, it seems; but we certainly do know how to hang separately. If he could see us today, I don't think he'd be pleased.

For all his world travel, being an American was precious to Ben Franklin - even before there was an America.

More precious, apparently, than it is to many of today's leaders.

Originally published November 7, 2005

Wish I'd written that...

It was a cinch I'd be behind on all the urgent social issues of the day because I'd quit watching the news on network TV, not being a big fan of socialism, and I wasn't walking around with a pile of degrees in Communism from Berkeley and Harvard. I was just a simple patriot. And unlike your silly lefties, I wanted to see my country protected from the swarms of raving, subhuman assholes who want to kill us because they hate cheeseburgers, golf, football, soap and water, toilets that flush, the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue, clothing stores, and women who don't smell like donkeys.

It would also be helpful, I'd mention, if we could delaminate all the dunce-cap university professors who want to 'diversify' this and 'globalize' that, provide air-conditioned condos and SUVs for illegal aliens, healthcare and satellite dishes for armed robbers and serial killers, and can't wait to blame the United States for all the bad shit that happens in the world. They could globalize this. That was my basic message."

Dan Jenkins, Slim and None

Throwback Thursday: Remembering when the band played on

THE TITANIC'S BAND PLAYS IN A SCENE FROM A NIGHT TO REMEMBER, 1958

Awhile back, Terry Teachout posted a meme that, as I recall, had something to do with books that had made an immediate and lasting impact on you after you'd read them. Now, I think it's an automatic reflex that the mind starts working every time you read about that kind of list, and it didn't take me long to realize that I might have a very difficult time coming up with ten or so titles that would fit the description. It's not that I haven't read a lot of books, nor is it the case that I'd classify most of those books as forgettable.

It's just that the bar is set pretty high on this. We're not necessarily talking about favorite or best-loved books. There are many books that pack a wallop when you've just turned the final page and closed the covers; it's the rare book that lasts beyond that, causing your mind to return to it again and again. For me, a writer as well as reader, it might involve characters so memorable that I start speculating on how I'd write the continuation of their story. It could be a line or two that sticks in the mind, a line that you find yourself pulling out and using frequently. Or it could be one scene that haunts you, burns itself into your memory like a photographic negative. Whatever the case, I think a list of such books, like a list of one's closest friends, is probably quite short.*

*My own list wound up being short enough; eight titles. Maybe someday we'll discuss them all, but of course that isn't what today's piece is really about.

The point of this is to set up the video clip we're about to look at. One of the books that made my list is Psalm at Journey's End, Erik Fosnes Hansen's remarkable novel about the members of the famed band on the ill-fated maiden voyage of the Titanic. As you know, I'm something of a Titanic buff, but fictional treatments of the Titanic have rarely risen to the level of the drama of the real story.  Psalm at Journey's End is the exception, and though the characters' names and their personal stories have been fictionalized (and, in fact, the Titanic itself is merely the vehicle, so to speak, through which their stories are told), Hansen's melancholy tale tells of the passion, the triumph and tragedy of the Titanic better than any recent movie could hope to.

The moment of truth comes on the novel's last page. Folklore has long supposed that "Nearer, My God, to Thee" was the piece which the band played as the ship went down. Walter Lord's definitive A Night to Remember rejected that tradition in favor of the Episcopal hymn "Autumn." Lord based his assessment on the eyewitness testimony of wireless operator Harold Bride, who was on the ship until the very end. However, in Lord's follow-up The Night Lives On, he addressed speculation that the piece to which Bride had been referring was actually "Songe d'Automne", a popular song of the time. Lord acknowledges the plausibility, indeed the probability, that this was in fact the final piece, but he concedes that we will probably never know for sure. Other historians have other opinions, the point being that such conjecture has long been part of the lore of the Titanic, and probably always will be.

Hansen, too, has his own theory, only his is far different, and adds to the poignancy of the ship's last moments. Recalling a memory from his childhood, bandleader Jason Coward asks the other musicians to join him in Handel's Largo.  The Largo is the popular name for the aria "Ombra mai fù" from Handel's opera Serse. Not only is it the most famous aria from this seldom-performed opera, it comes right at the beginning - a real rarety. Imagine Bobby Darin starting every concert by singing "Mack the Knife" (which he did, incidentelly). Or, since we're discussing Handel, suppose he started Messiah with the "Hallelujia Chorus." Nothing like leading with your strength.

"Ombra mai fù" is a wonderfully evocative piece (although if you look at the lyrics, you'll find that it's only a song about the shade provided by a tree), and coming as it does at the end of this very sad book, telling such a sad story, it makes a powerful impact. The following is not taken from Serse; even though it comes at the beginning, you still have to get through the opening credits and the overture. There are plenty of concert versions to choose from, sung by mezzos, baritones, countertenors. I'll give you this filmed performance by Jennifer Larmore - I know, there's no apparent reason for it to have been shot in a shipyard, but in our context it seems quite appropriate.

Ombra mai fu...

Uploaded by Vanhacker.

Originally published July 8, 2009

Paul Greenberg's "The Death of Opera" and art's sad turn

THE ENGLISH NATIONAL OPERA'S PRODUCTION OF THE DEATH OF KLINGHOFFER, 2012

We have discussed here the Adams opera The Death of Klinghoffer, built around the 1985 seajacking of the Achille Lauro that lead to the death of 69-year old Leon Klinghoffer by Arafat-aligned Palestine Liberation Front terrorists.  Paul Greenberg has made serious comments about the pro-terrorist angle of the opera.

It would be right in line with our morally neutral era, with its aversion to the judgmental, its fear of taking a stand between right and wrong, good and evil.

(T)hose of us who are disgusted by its taste in this instance, and its willingness to lend itself to the most dehumanizing propaganda, have a right to speak up, too. As crowds of New Yorkers have done outside the Met. We have more than a right to speak up when evil is cosmeticized, even romanticized. We have a duty.

Mr. Greenberg's column also compared the opera to the works of pro-Fuehrer filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl, and had serious words at the end that had me thinking seriously about our nation's future.

Those of us disgusted by this libretto can only echo the accusation that the opera's Marilyn Klinghoffer hurls at the captain of the Achille Lauro, who's been respectfully and even sympathetically negotiating with the murderers aboard his ship. When the ever-neutral captain must tell her that that her husband has been murdered, and his wheelchair-bound body thrown into the sea, she shrieks at him: "You embraced them!" Which is what the Metropolitan Opera now has done, too.

Art seemingly has become a propaganda piece to advance certain causes embraced by a tiny minority that few support, but they are using their platform of the stage to advance the propaganda.  It is working well in various leftist issues, whether it is cannabinoids or criminalising Christianity, or other social causes.  The Bohemians are sadly in control.  That is the a thought considering what the creator of three popular ABC dramas that air on Thursday night is promoting.  It's everywhere on HBO, Showtime, and Netflix.  They need the propaganda to advance what most oppose.

Cannabinoids but still advancing their push?

If it isn't clear that 1960's liberalism is running amok in this country with courts become tyrannical dictators by overturning constitutions in an attempt to ram down a nation based on their feelings while overturning majorities on any number of issues, including trying to criminalise the Bible in favour of their own feelings, you can see it with the victorious push of cannabinoid legalisation.

As we've documented this year, the Canandigua Motorsports Park 360 cubic inch sprint car incident in August resulted in a fatality, and the toxicology report proved the driver killed tested positive for cannabinoids, which is a prohibited substance in WADA drug tests. Cannabinoids are prohibited in drug testing for most places of work.  We recently learned the Ferguson incident also had a case of cannabinoids in the deceased, who is being deified as innocent despite his actions that led to the shootout, and racial animosity in that area, with threats of massive looting should the policeman, who came close to being defenceless by the cannabinoid-positive thug, be acquitted.  Once again, the writing is on the wall -- cannabinoids created this incident.

But the elections proved sadly, those urban hippies want to remake the country in their own mould.  Already victorious in Colorado (Denver and Boulder) and Washington (King County), the push for cannabinoid legalisation has scored victories in Alaska, Oregon (Portland city-state), and the Washington DC area.  What are these people thinking?  The values of a generation that hates every standard seemingly has won at every bend thanks to such stupidity. Why are people demanding cannabinoids everywhere?  Do they understand the health hazards?

Throwback Thursday: Mediocrity isn't good enough

In the interests of full disclosure, let me state at the outset that I consider myself a tried-and-true capitalist. If there's a better economic system functioning right now, I haven't met it.

Having said that, longtime readers of this site also know my healthy skepticism (read: contempt) for "Corporate America," which I consider more of a culture or a way of thinking than I do an economic entity. Suffice it to say that Corporate America, in my opinion, is its own worst enemy, and in many ways an enemy to all of us.

It was, therefore, with a great deal of interest that I read a piece by David Goldman (aka "Spengler") entitled "Mediocrity and Corruption in Corporate America." If there's anything in this piece I didn't agree with, I haven't been able to find it. A few choice bits:

Mediocrity breeds corruption. The business world is crawling with affable, industrious, intelligent people with nothing to distinguish them from ten thousand other affable, industrious and intelligent people, but who very much would like to be rich. . . These are the people most inclined to cheat, for they know that they have nothing unique to offer the world, and their ascent depends either on luck or unfair advantage. They cheat in every way possible, whenever they have a chance. One way they cheat is to steal from the stockholders by front-loading profits and back-loading risks. That is what destroyed the banking system. At the top of the market in 2006-2007 when risk compensation was stupidly low, bank managers made their return-on-equity numbers by adding leverage on top of leverage. Every one of them knew that it was a dumb and dishonest thing to do, but they all hoped that they would be promoted by the time the problem blew up in someone else's lap.

[...]

Dogged-as-does-it, steady-as-she-goes, unimaginative CEO's of the sort [David] Brooks' praises sat in front of spreadsheets, demanding that their subordinates make their numbers. Without keen insight, they simply piled on risk just as the portfolio hit the fan. The most imaginative, intelligent, and daring firm on Wall Street, namely Goldman Sachs, took out massive short positions against the subprime market. So did J.P. Morgan. Wonder why they are coming out on top? About those who came out on the bottom, a respectable silence is appropriate.

There is only one truly effective way to control corporate corruption, and that is through creative destruction. Let the wild men, the warped geniuses, the chip-on-the-shoulder mad entrepreneurs loose on the established corporate world. Let big corporations go bankrupt right and left. Drive out mediocrity with the scourge of innovation. Let new companies emerge, and then go bankrupt when something better comes along. Real genius, as Heinrich Heine once rhymed, pays cash at the bar. The oddball entrepreneurial types don't cheat. They see life as a game and want to play it by their own rules. They are out to prove that they are smarter than their peers, and to cheat would be to miss the point of the game.

And I'll add that this is by no means limited to what we think of as "Big Business." It can be found throughout the business landscape, from non-profits to small companies to - oh, say, automakers. Goldman is spot on in saying that mediocrity has to be driven out - there's far too much of it at every level of management for as far as the eye can see. As Pat Buchanan once famously said, Corporate America has to "worship at a higher altar than the bottom line." Mere competence would, at least, be a start.

Originally published June 2, 2009

Opera Wednesday: The Manchurian Candidate

I will admit that I was more than a little skeptical when my former home-town Minnesota Opera announced plans a few years ago to produce an operatic version of the classic political thriller The Manchurian Candidate.  Besides the almost-impossible task of living up to the original Frank Sinatra movie version (does anyone really remember Denzel Washington's remake?), the imaginative camera angles that were used by director John Frankenheimer (the famous tearoom scene, for example) seemed to suggest that this would be yet another example of opera companies commissioning productions that would be seen once and then (if one was lucky) forgotten forever.

But, in one of those cases I always hate to admit to, I may have been wrong about this.  The opera doesn't premiere until next March (and I won't be there to see it anyway), but some of the things I've heard and read about it are causing me to reassess my original opinion.  The synopsis that I've seen suggests a story quite close to the original (a slightly built-up role for the Janet Leigh character, but if you're going to have a female lead, that's to be expected), and the clip below indicates some quite interesting music that not only advances the plot but creates an atmosphere in tune with the story.


The jury should still be out on this until the production actually hits the stage, but I've moved from being a skeptic to having an open mind.  Perhaps I should have been there already, but given the track record not only of new opera but the Minnesota Opera in particular, you can understand my uncertainty.  At any rate, next year we should know if we have a new masterpiece on our hands, or just one more opera to forget.  I'm hoping for the former - if I were still living in the Twin Cities, I'd be certain to check it out.  As it is, if it's good, and if it goes on the road and winds up in Dallas, I'll stand in line to see it.

Should voting be compulsory? How much dumber do you want things to get?

Sometimes you can't help but get sucked into reading something stupid, and I fell into that vortex this morning by seeing a headline at CNN.com* that said "Should Voting Be Compulsory?"  Being CNN, I naturally assumed the answer would be "Yes," because I assumed that the answer would be stupid.

*I know it's CNN, but I do occasionally check the headlines to find out if someone important has died, if a major city has been bombed, or if Jennifer Lawrence has had another nude photo hacked.

As it turns out, while the writer is obviously sympathetic to the idea of people being forced to vote, he stops short of making it mandatory. Perhaps he still has some vague respect for the idea of freedom, I don't know.  But he does suggest that it should be easier to vote, and while that may not be as stupid as being forced to vote, it's almost as stupid.*  Here's why:

*Excepting, of course, the physical act of voting, including being able to find the hidden door into the polling place.  There's being well-informed, and then there's having to go through an obstacle course to get in and cast your ballot.  Nobody in their right mind would argue that - except, perhaps, the people who locked all the doors.

First, and speaking practically, the measures taken to make voting easier often accomplish nothing more than making voter fraud easier.  Of course requiring a proper ID can make the lines move slower - is that really such a bad thing compared to ensuring a legal vote?  And don't give me that line about it being harder for some people to get an ID in the first place - if you're motivated enough to vote, you're going to find a way to get one.  I'm sure there are dozens of political candidates who'd be only too willing to give you a ride to City Hall to get one.  Same goes for same-day registration - if I can't take pains to fill out the proper form 30 days in advance, or 90 days, or however long it may happen to be, that's too bad.  Anyway, if I've only lived somewhere for a few days, why should I be voting on local issues on which I've had no chance to educate myself?  And as for early voting - well, I'd be all for it if we passed a concurrent law that stated no candidate could campaign or advertise once the first person had cast an early vote.  That might be an idea worth looking into.

In point of fact, there are some people who are simply too dumb to be voting.  I don't mean that they're ideologically stupid, not at all.  True, there are some on both sides of the aisle, but ideology is something you're entitled to be stupid about.  No, I'm talking about people who wind up in videos by Jimmy Kimmel - people who don't know who the Vice President is, or don't know when they're being spoofed on current events, people like that.  Tell me truly - do you really want to live in a nation governed by leaders chosen by fools like that?

If we make voting too easy, with no effort, then it means we'll have a lot more voters like that.  It means that the vote of someone who's taken time to get involved and learn about the issues counts for just as much as someone who thinks Babe Ruth was the sixteenth president of the United States.  Now, I'm not an elitist; I don't think the world would be better run by scientists or intellectuals or people who are just better than the hoi polloi.  But I don't think any of us would feel comfortable driving around in our cars if they'd just been serviced by a gynecologist who couldn't tell a dipstick from a carburetor.

It is, of course, endemic of a society that doesn't really want to have to work hard for anything.  From the millennials and their strong sense of entitlement to a culture that doesn't seem to put much of a premium on actually achieving things, we've gotten used to having things made so easy that we don't even have to get up from the couch to do them.  From shopping to conversing with friends to watching videos, there's not much we can't do with a minimum of effort.  Why should voting be any different, I suppose?

And whatever happened to the great right of people to refuse to vote on principal?  I know you can always write-in a name, but if the only two choices on the ballot are Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum*, then I'd just as soon stay home.  You can't really force me to choose between the two, and many write-in votes are just more examples of frivolity.

*Or Ollie Dee and Stanley Dum, if you will.

Do I wish more people voted?  Yes, in the abstract.  Do I wish more people educated themselves on the issues (and not by the MSM) before they voted?  Most certainly.  But making voting easier just for the sake of raising the vote count, without any guarantee that the voters are taking themselves seriously, is an idea that itself doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.  The last time I heard someone discuss making voting mandatory, it was a contestant in a beauty pageant trying to answer one of those painful questions from the host.  It wasn't a pretty sight.  Neither is the idea of lines and lines of uneducated people waiting to determine who the next leader of the free world is.  That is as stupid as, well, getting your news from CNN.