Tuesday, August 12, 2003
Shakespeare in the park
shakespeare in the park is a cheap, unconventional and boring entertainment. Recently I had the opportunity to view the playing of "love's labour lost" at a cupertino park. Despite viewing the play with an open mind, I was disappointed with its entertainment value.
The set of the play was indeed nicely done and the cast probably poured their hearts out into practicing for the play and yet it was a failing attempt to catch a culture that has been bygone for a few centuries now and yet which we try to hold onto. The play deals with a young prince of navar (sp?) and his courtier friends that fall in love with a princess from france and her traveling entourage of friends and then their resulting courtship dance. For the longest time into the play all that I could understand was that the actors were speaking english, but most of the logic of their words was lost on me. The play used a mixture of contemporary dress codes with old world costumes, a mix of evening gowns and nightie pajamas with the soldiers wardrobe of a 18th century noble. But despite all these experimentations, the director still decided to use the old world english for dialogues complete with flourishes and sentence structures that probably made no sense to anyone except the speaker (at least the speaker I hope !). And every idea needed 100 sentences to convery its meaning. Its a wonder how people didnt fall asleep in conversations back then. None of these people would have survived in the modern world of high tech and fast life.
My favorite actor of the play was a person named "hector". I still dont know who exactly he was, but a safe guess would be an italian noble. Hector's accent and vocabulary was oh so wicked, a jibe and a tease to the prim and proper english aristocracy and elite and thier stiff upper lip. "Posterior of the day" was Hector's vocabulary equivalent of an afternoon and that was enough to send the crowds laughing out loud. There was also this funny policeman who never said anything but walked through the scenes with a funny walk and a never fading grin. He looked more lost than actually acting.
Lots of drinking, dancing, amorous insinuations, deathly news and then nothing- JUST the end. Nothing had changed by the end of the play compared to its starting. The prince and his courtiers and the princess and her friends were still all single. The policeman still couldnt walk straight (and he wasnt even drunk). The only thing that was different was that hector in midst of all this mayhem and chaos had had a chance for a tryst with his girl friend and was expecting a "little hector".
For all the time that I spent there (almost 3.5 hours) I couldnt understand what had hit me. I kept grappling for the sentences that just whizzed above my head @ breakneck speed. I probably caught about one of every 8 - 10 sentence that was spoken. As I left I remember thinking to myself "Its good they keep this free or there wouldnt be this many people here on a sunday night"
shakespeare in the park is a cheap, unconventional and boring entertainment. Recently I had the opportunity to view the playing of "love's labour lost" at a cupertino park. Despite viewing the play with an open mind, I was disappointed with its entertainment value.
The set of the play was indeed nicely done and the cast probably poured their hearts out into practicing for the play and yet it was a failing attempt to catch a culture that has been bygone for a few centuries now and yet which we try to hold onto. The play deals with a young prince of navar (sp?) and his courtier friends that fall in love with a princess from france and her traveling entourage of friends and then their resulting courtship dance. For the longest time into the play all that I could understand was that the actors were speaking english, but most of the logic of their words was lost on me. The play used a mixture of contemporary dress codes with old world costumes, a mix of evening gowns and nightie pajamas with the soldiers wardrobe of a 18th century noble. But despite all these experimentations, the director still decided to use the old world english for dialogues complete with flourishes and sentence structures that probably made no sense to anyone except the speaker (at least the speaker I hope !). And every idea needed 100 sentences to convery its meaning. Its a wonder how people didnt fall asleep in conversations back then. None of these people would have survived in the modern world of high tech and fast life.
My favorite actor of the play was a person named "hector". I still dont know who exactly he was, but a safe guess would be an italian noble. Hector's accent and vocabulary was oh so wicked, a jibe and a tease to the prim and proper english aristocracy and elite and thier stiff upper lip. "Posterior of the day" was Hector's vocabulary equivalent of an afternoon and that was enough to send the crowds laughing out loud. There was also this funny policeman who never said anything but walked through the scenes with a funny walk and a never fading grin. He looked more lost than actually acting.
Lots of drinking, dancing, amorous insinuations, deathly news and then nothing- JUST the end. Nothing had changed by the end of the play compared to its starting. The prince and his courtiers and the princess and her friends were still all single. The policeman still couldnt walk straight (and he wasnt even drunk). The only thing that was different was that hector in midst of all this mayhem and chaos had had a chance for a tryst with his girl friend and was expecting a "little hector".
For all the time that I spent there (almost 3.5 hours) I couldnt understand what had hit me. I kept grappling for the sentences that just whizzed above my head @ breakneck speed. I probably caught about one of every 8 - 10 sentence that was spoken. As I left I remember thinking to myself "Its good they keep this free or there wouldnt be this many people here on a sunday night"
Monday, August 11, 2003
OPEN MINDEDNESS
I live in the bay area. And Bay area, as anybody who reads the newspapers knows, is liberal to the point of having its own unique culture. I have considered myself open minded if not an extreme liberal. However lately I have been questioning my open mindedness and those of many others in the bay area. Personally I have been open minded to various experiences and various cultures, differences and views. The variety has never bothered me at all. In fact I blame my open mindedness to my being lazy. Case in point, I never make an extra effort to convert people in mature debates to my point of view; I am just interested in knowing their stand.
However does open mindedness mean only tolerance to views directly opposite to your own beliefs or does it mean an active effort to encourage, cultivate and explore the opposing views. There is a distinction of being passively accepting on one hand and actively seeking diversity on the other hand. I remember a date with a girl (incidentally nothing happened on the date; we were too uncomfortable with each other; case in point the conversation on hand - who talks about open mindedness on first dates anyway ;) and we had a strong disagreement on the SF gay pride parade. My view was that there is nothing to be proud of your sexuality (heterosexual or homosexual). It is just a part of you, you should accept it, perhaps act on it in the private confines and move on. You dont need to have parades to proclaim whether you bat left handed or right handed ;) However her belabored point was (*after* spending time articulating how close minded I was) that diversity and especially the differences that are still fragile and "wet behind the ears" need a firm hand of support and should be celebrated. These differences are what give meaning and color to our "majority" preferences. Agreed !! Looking at this from her perspective I do agree that some differences do need an active encouragement than mere passive tolerance. However this is to the point till the "rebel idea" becomes sufficiently mainstream. Beyond that I feel such "celebrations" would merely highlight one choice at the expense of the other.
Anyhow, so this does make me wonder if I am really as open minded as I thought I was. I remember listening to a comment on NPR from a mother that went something like this : "It is always nice to have gays in your family and I am glad that my son is gay. It adds wealth to your family. Not the money wealth but a richness of culture" . Well I dont remember the quote verbatim but the spirit of the thought makes me wonder if I would actually ever be able to think like that. I have tolerated gay people before, I had a roommate who was gay and who was awesome, but I have never actively tried to search for gay friends. I guess I still need to grow in my journey to becoming open minded.
Finally my observation of people that do not date outside their culture, do not have friends outside their social strata, culture or ethinicty. Are these people to be considered open minded and should we show them leniency by allowing them to hide behind their "personal preferences" or do these people also have a journey to cover with me on the path to being open minded. The funny thing is almost all the people I know in the bay area would consider themselves open minded and yet they have certain personal preferences that they would never compromise. May it be the highly educated person wanting to date or be friends with only other higly educated persons (its funny how many lawyers on friendster just have other lawyer friends) or the upwordly mobile white yuppie woman who wants to date only other white yuppie guys. My white male german friend says he would like to date only white women, because they appear more familiar to him. Should I consider him close minded ? when I tell him I like blondes with blue eyes, he is farly accepting of my taste and yet my preferences make me close minded too.
Do personal preferences themselves signify close mindedness ? I submit that they do only as long as these preferences make one exclude all the other less preferred subjects. To deny newer experiences based only on personal preferences would be indeed sad. However ultimately it stands to reason that open mindedness should signify accepting other peoples short comings, prejudices and preferences without creating new ones within you. It is indeed a hard path to walk.
I live in the bay area. And Bay area, as anybody who reads the newspapers knows, is liberal to the point of having its own unique culture. I have considered myself open minded if not an extreme liberal. However lately I have been questioning my open mindedness and those of many others in the bay area. Personally I have been open minded to various experiences and various cultures, differences and views. The variety has never bothered me at all. In fact I blame my open mindedness to my being lazy. Case in point, I never make an extra effort to convert people in mature debates to my point of view; I am just interested in knowing their stand.
However does open mindedness mean only tolerance to views directly opposite to your own beliefs or does it mean an active effort to encourage, cultivate and explore the opposing views. There is a distinction of being passively accepting on one hand and actively seeking diversity on the other hand. I remember a date with a girl (incidentally nothing happened on the date; we were too uncomfortable with each other; case in point the conversation on hand - who talks about open mindedness on first dates anyway ;) and we had a strong disagreement on the SF gay pride parade. My view was that there is nothing to be proud of your sexuality (heterosexual or homosexual). It is just a part of you, you should accept it, perhaps act on it in the private confines and move on. You dont need to have parades to proclaim whether you bat left handed or right handed ;) However her belabored point was (*after* spending time articulating how close minded I was) that diversity and especially the differences that are still fragile and "wet behind the ears" need a firm hand of support and should be celebrated. These differences are what give meaning and color to our "majority" preferences. Agreed !! Looking at this from her perspective I do agree that some differences do need an active encouragement than mere passive tolerance. However this is to the point till the "rebel idea" becomes sufficiently mainstream. Beyond that I feel such "celebrations" would merely highlight one choice at the expense of the other.
Anyhow, so this does make me wonder if I am really as open minded as I thought I was. I remember listening to a comment on NPR from a mother that went something like this : "It is always nice to have gays in your family and I am glad that my son is gay. It adds wealth to your family. Not the money wealth but a richness of culture" . Well I dont remember the quote verbatim but the spirit of the thought makes me wonder if I would actually ever be able to think like that. I have tolerated gay people before, I had a roommate who was gay and who was awesome, but I have never actively tried to search for gay friends. I guess I still need to grow in my journey to becoming open minded.
Finally my observation of people that do not date outside their culture, do not have friends outside their social strata, culture or ethinicty. Are these people to be considered open minded and should we show them leniency by allowing them to hide behind their "personal preferences" or do these people also have a journey to cover with me on the path to being open minded. The funny thing is almost all the people I know in the bay area would consider themselves open minded and yet they have certain personal preferences that they would never compromise. May it be the highly educated person wanting to date or be friends with only other higly educated persons (its funny how many lawyers on friendster just have other lawyer friends) or the upwordly mobile white yuppie woman who wants to date only other white yuppie guys. My white male german friend says he would like to date only white women, because they appear more familiar to him. Should I consider him close minded ? when I tell him I like blondes with blue eyes, he is farly accepting of my taste and yet my preferences make me close minded too.
Do personal preferences themselves signify close mindedness ? I submit that they do only as long as these preferences make one exclude all the other less preferred subjects. To deny newer experiences based only on personal preferences would be indeed sad. However ultimately it stands to reason that open mindedness should signify accepting other peoples short comings, prejudices and preferences without creating new ones within you. It is indeed a hard path to walk.
