ttyl.ca

I just saw Jesus Christ Superstar at the Port Theatre in Nanaimo.  This is the third time I’ve seen it, and I love this rock opera so much, I probably would not normally post my views on it, but wow, they really did a bad job, so here’s my revenge… 

1) Geriatric Jebus: FAIL. Time for Ted Neely to hang up the tunic and sandals.   He couldn’t sing to save his life — er, so to speak.  He did manage to screech a little — which made people clap — but luckily a few well-placed bright lights and thunder booms, and ridiculous acting, covered it all up (mostly).

2) Director: FAIL. He completely missed any and all irony (not to mention the real tragedy) in the original production. He produced it straight — with Christ as the hero — and made Judas into “evil Shylock” (short, with a pointy Jew beard and devil-red pants).

For example, right after the 39 lashes, when the score cuts to the Jesus Christ Superstar music, the center piece is Jesus struggling back to his feet (I half-expected Elton John’s I’m Still Standing to start playing).  Anyone who knows this piece knows that the point is Judas’s words and not Jesus’s defiance.  Judas sings…

Every time I look at you, I don’t understand
Why you let the things you did get so out of hand
You’d have managed better if you’d had it planned
Now why’d you choose such a backward time and such a strange land?
If you’d come today you could have reached the whole nation
Israel in 4 BC had no mass communication

…

Tell me what you think about your friends at the top
Now who d’you think besides yourself was the pick of the crop?
Buddah was he where it’s at? Is he where you are?
Could Muhammmed move a mountain or was that just PR?
Did you mean to die like that? Was that a mistake or
Did you know your messy death would be a record breaker?

This is possibly the grooviest song in the score.  It’s supported by an iconic chorus, not to mention the radical notion of Judas’s voice from the grave.  And what does our director want us to see?  Geriatric Jebus bathed in glowing white light struggling to overcome the extreme unfairness of it all…  Come on!

This to me is the biggest failure of the production.  Judas as villain wouldn’t have worked 30 years ago.  It certainly doesn’t work today.  But then again, maybe not.  I might be wrong about that.  Maybe it *does* work today, and that’s a very sad statement about today.

3. Judas: also fail.  But somewhat reluctantly and so lowercase.  This performance was damaged far more by the director than the singing.  But seriously, it’s Judas.  Your cries need to be blood chilling dude.  Maybe it was just a casting error.  But then again, between needing to diminish the power of Judas’s lines, and running out of thunder boomers and blazing lights to cover up for Neely’s voice, maybe he was just told to aim for mediocrity.  (Win?)

4. Pilate:  FAIL.  Back to uppercase.  I actually wanted to plug my ears during his final climactic lines.  He was just shouting.  I’m all for making the part your own (who could ever reproduce the irrepressible Barry Dennen?), but again, this is another one of those important (non-deity) characters, and whoever this guy was…  <yawn>.

5. Mary: win.  It’s not all bad news.  Mary’s voice was beautiful, and one of the highlights of the show for me.

6. Herod: WIN! It’s not risky to do Herod as Rice/Webber intended him, and so here our director does not let us down. Way to go!

7. Choreogrpahy: WIN!  Arlene Phillips and Louanne Madorma-Williams saved the day in my opinion.  Considering what they were given to work with in terms of interpretation, they pulled off some great numbers.  In particular, the blob-like mass of bodies pressuring Jesus to cure them was brilliant!  (Although Neely turning his face quizically skyward in mock conversation with dear old dad mouthing “His purse?” in response to one of the lines actually made me laugh out loud.)

Poor Ted Neely.  Poor Jebus.  Poor Christians.

In the end, that’s what this production is all about.  That oh so annoying “oppressed majority” and its oh so easy-to-hurt feelings.  I suppose one good thing about this production is that it shows just how ridiculous it is to believe that there can even *be* such a thing as a villain in a plan you laid out in the first place to accomplish!

One thing that I always liked about JCS (whether as a believer or an atheist — I’ve enjoyed it as both) was that I could identify with both Judas and Jesus.  I Only Want to Say is Jesus’s great moment of questioning the difficulty he faces.  At that point, he’s just like you or me, struggling to do the right thing.  It’s about overcoming fear with courage.  And that’s Rice/Webber’s genius.  It works because both sides are human.  As soon as you turn Judas (and the mob, and Pilate) into the obvious villain and Christ into the poor victim (not helped by the white hair and wrinkles Ted!) it all just becomes sanctimonious and righteous.

The production ends with Neely twitching his way to a slow (almost) death on the cross.  At the last instant, he stops twitching and is raised into the heavens (with a goofy grin on his face).  It was all Janice and I could do not to laugh out loud.  It was simultaneously hideous, comical and sad.  Keep in mind this is all happening just a few hundred seconds after Judas has belted out the great title song.

And then?  Ta da!  The show is punctuated by a huge Shroud of Turin dropping in front of the entire stage.

The best part of the whole night for me was in that instant of silence right before the applause, and before my filter had time to kick in, when I let slip, “CON!!!” and even heard a few giggles in response. 

UPDATE: This has been overturned. Good job YouTube!

Pat Condell has the most subscriptions of any comic on YouTube. He has been making candid, no-holds-barred critiques of British society, Muslim theocracy and religion in general for quite some time.

Recently YouTube threatened to suspend his account, and pulled his latest video on Sharia law in Britain. From his user page on YouTube, Condell tells us:

I’VE RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING MESSAGE FROM YOUTUBE EXPLAINING WHY MY VIDEO “WELCOME TO SAUDI BRITAIN” WAS REMOVED:“Your video was removed due to a violation of ourpolicy against hate speech. The specific portion of the video found to be in violation occurs around 2:20.”

But it doesn’t matter that he’s popular or that he’s consistent. What matters is whether or not he has the right to say what he’s saying. Here’s a heads up regarding YouTube’s comments about what happens at 2:20. He calls one Saudi an “idiot,” and the entire country “mentally ill.”

Watch it for yourself.

He’s angry about Sharia law being instituted in Britain. He’s angry that his society, which values tolerance, does so to the extreme of allowing an INtolerant subculture to establish and legitimize its own INtolerant court system. Rules in a Sharia court would not be allowed in society at large’s court. He’s angry that political correctness rules common sense.

Is that not something worth being angry about? Has he crossed some line to rail against a culture that punishes rape victims as mentally ill? How should members of socially tolerant liberal democracies react exactly? Please, YouTube, enlighten us!

The point is, even if you don’t like the WAY he is saying it, or for that matter, even if you disagree with him altogether, you ARE simply proving his point by censuring him for this video. Watch ALL his videos (start at the end of the list and work back to get them chronologically), and tell me you don’t come to the conclusion (as many have) that he is really a peace-loving patriot, that his heart really is in the right place and that he is genuinely concerned and, yes, outraged.

Sticks and stones, YouTube. As has been said, WAY WORSE language than this has been used in all sorts of official public discourse around the world, whether it’s politics, courts or food critics!

What can they possibly hope to accomplish by banning this video? I am dumbfounded that they would even try. There’s NO foundation for it, and they should be ashamed of themselves.

For fuck’s sake, are you even paying attention to the last 8 years in America, and the current election? YouTube, are YOU mentally ill?

A few people had recommended the movie Zeitgeist to me, so I watched it. I tried once, and turned it off after ten minutes, but then a few weeks later watched it all the way through, just so I could write this review.

Part I, The Greatest Story Ever Told, debunks the Jesus myth by pointing out its similarities to the many preceding myths (such as Mithra, Horace, etc), and concludes that therefore astrology is true. I mean, isn’t it obvious?! No Jesus = Astrology YES!! The funny part is that they actually use things Jesus “says” (yes, the same Jesus they just finished debunking) as proof for their claims about astrology!

Part II, All the World’s a Stage, claims 9/11 is an inside job, and furthermore, everything the government ever does is some kind of conspiracy. EVERYTHING!

Part III, Don’t Mind the Men Behind the Curtain, tells us that rich people have, throughout history, done things, EVIL things, to stay rich. NO!!!!

For me, all credibility was shot at the beginning. I can’t understand how people got past the opening montage with scenes from the Hubble telescope, war zones and mock ups of evolutionary change — intensified impressively with a rhapsodic score. I felt so ready to believe anything! Yes, YES!!! Andromeda + evolution = war!!!

WhatEV.

The first spoken content occurs at the five minute mark, and goes like so…

The more you begin to investigate, what we think we understand, where
we came from, what we think we’re doing, the more you begin to see
we’ve been lied to.

Um, okaaay… …”what we think we’re doing”? <looks around for someone watching…> How meaningless can you be? And “lied to”!! Of course, it’s always that, isn’t it? Really, viewers can switch off at this point, but let’s continue for a bit of sadomasochistic fun, shall we? They’re going to tell us “where we came from” I think…

We’ve been lied to by every institution. What makes you think for one
minute that the religious institution is the only one that’s never
been touched.

What makes you think I think that? And, oh by the way, that’s a pretty grand assertion to just throw out there at the top of your little show. Care to back that up? “Every” institution? Really? EVERY???

The religious institutions of this world are at the bottom of the
dirt. The religious institutions in this world are put there by the
same people who gave you your government, your corrupt education, who
set up your international banking cartels, because our masters don’t
give a damn about you or your family. All they care about is what
they have always cared about and that’s controlling the whole damn
world.

I love that line: “the bottom of the dirt.” Ha ha ha! Man, this guy needs a writer! But I digress… Elites, “masters,” leaders, whatever you want to call them, have ALWAYS existed since we started organizing ourselves, which, as far as you and I are concerned, is since FOREVER! The fact that leaders emerge is a part of our evolutionary history and interesting to study, but the fact that they “emerge” is exactly the point. It’s a point about ALL OF US, and not an “us/them” question in any way.

Conspiracy theorists don’t get that. Onward…

We have been misled away from the true and divine presence in the
universe that men have called god. I don’t know what god is, but I
know what he isn’t. And unless and until you are prepared to look at
the whole truth, wherever it may go, whoever it may lead to, if you
want to look the other way or if you want to play favourites, then
somewhere along the line you are going to find out you are messing
with divine justice.

Wow. So much in that one! “I don’t know what god is, but I know what he isn’t.” Really? Is god male? Wait. Nevermind. I don’t care…

But I am curious to know how it is you know what god isn’t. Where did you get this knowledge?! Can anyone get knowledge like this there? Teach me oh wise one!

I guess by not playing favorites, you mean not indulging your biases? How is it that you escape yours?

If you’re interested, it turns out that we actually already HAVE a system for looking at the truth, as best we can, and generating our knowledge about things. It’s called science. Now, before you get all pissy about your conspiracy theories about the behemoth science controlling knowledge, consider the following. It’s the only system in the world, whereby anyone can postulate what they think is true, test their ideas, show results, and then present them to the community at large for review. This last piece is the crucial part. It prevents the powerful and the crackpots from overly influencing the discussion (notice, I said “overly”).

Many scientists would give their left nut/ovary to be famous for proving something very new and exciting. Proving ANYthing paranormal qualifies. And even if you prefer to argue against that last point, and think that not one single scientist would ever do such a thing as “break ranks” for the promise of fame and riches (and you would be arguing so for the purposes of your conspiracy theory), fine. Do the science yourself. Postulate, test, report, and submit to review. Easy peasey!

And sorry, what? Divine justice? WHAT? You don’t know what god is, but you do know what he isn’t…. So god … um … ISN’T … um … the LACK of divine justice. Got it! Clever!!! The universe has a justice to it!! Nice!!! I feel better already. (And, that’s the point really, isn’t it Conspiracy Boy?)

The more you educate yourself, the more you understand where things
come from, the more obvious things become, and you begin to see lies
everywhere.

Great, now I see lies everywhere. Thanks a lot!

You have to know the truth, and seek the truth, and the truth will set you free.

This just sounds so familiar. Is it just me?

And hey!!! What about the part about where we came from?!!!! I was waiting for that!

I saw an ad for Dry Grad in the liquor store a while back. This is where parents organize a party for their kids to celebrate graduating from high school, a party with no alcohol to protect their precious little angels from the death and destruction that awaits all who imbibe such evil toxins.

When I graduated, parents had organized transportation to a secret location (to avoid crashers) where we could all party till we puked. It was a blast, and I’ll never forget it! It seemed (and still seems) like a very fitting end to an often dry and boring, sometimes exciting, and frequently disappointing 13-year-long undertaking.

Notice, the reason why parents did this for us was to support us (as good parents should) by providing supervision and safety for what was by and large an extremely necessary release for us all. They recognized the importance and took responsibility.

What’s the reason for dry grad? Even MORE responsible parenting, you say? Not a chance! It’s simply one more lesson added on the 13 years’ worth of lessons the poor bastards are trying to celebrate the END of. Instead of supporting graduates, they are taking the opportunity to TEACH THEM SOME MORE!!!!

I’m sorry, but parents, you are seriously missing the fucking point of a GRAD PARTY!!!

If you want to sit around drinking tea tittering about Johnny’s bright future and his Honor Roll achievements, go right on ahead. But where are the responsible parents who are interested in treating their children like individuals and who care about their safety?

So, the other day I was helping this self-proclaimed Luddite install some software.

I would never criticize someone for simply not knowing something.  We all have different experiences, and there’s more than enough knowledge to go around.   I’m always (okay, often) happy to help.

What bothered me was the pride behind the proclamation.   It’s reverse snobbery, and the worst kind — like being proud of being poor (or rather not being rich).  It’s a mask for insecurity.

The following argument was offered: “it took me decades to get this ignorant, so it’ll take me equally as long to learn how to do it.”

Um, noooo….  By that logic it should take us 16 years or so to learn to drive!  Okay, bad example….

We all have different tolerances for change, and as software developers, our job is to make software that’s as easy to use as a toaster.  For sure, we’re a long way off on many fronts.  But then, so are the toaster manufacturers!  We’re all doing varying degrees of our best and our worst.  But turning fear of change into pride just plain sucks!

IMHO

I just read a great comment that I had to share… In an article criticizing Richard Dawkins as misguidedly anti-semitic, David Berreby (inadvertently) points out that atheists sometimes fall victim to the very type of thinking that causes the in-group rantings they are usually railing against. Well, duh…

Berreby’s argument is based on modes of identity, and IMHO, flawed. There may be the different modes of identity that he claims, but he doesn’t show me that any particular identity is less open to criticism as a result of its category. The fact that some identities arise “at the knee” is exactly what Dawkins decries.

But Berreby’s point point that Dawkins reverts to the very type of thinking that he is criticizing is the lasting one for me. I can’t disagree.

I remember talking to someone recently about how and why being a feminist has fallen so far out of fashion in recent years. I made a point that feminism, in its many forms, was all about bringing about the end of a patriarchal way of thinking, but that to achieve that end, feminism often had to revert to patriarchal methods. That is, the act of opposing a rival is a patriarchal thing to do. Feminism, as a rival in a patriarchal system, gets absorbed by that system for its patriarchal way of organizing itself. Ugh, for feminism…

I’m sure there’s all sorts of literature on revolutionaries and this phenomenon already. For atheists, they are often drawn into discussions about whether theirs is a new religion, or whether their faith in science is analogous to religious faith. And, they often respond a most fervent “NO!” to this argument, or a dismissive “um, not!” to that. But the fact is, Dawkins DOES want to herd us, and we often DO sound evangelical.

This is why Sam Harris’s points are so needed, and so right. Take a cue from the feminist experience folks.

But, I really love the following comment to the Berreby article. Reader phonyvet on the Huffington Post website writes:

My personal history of disbelief is from nihilism to atheism to agnosticism. (I can’t count youthful indoctrination in a supernatural belief.) As I grew older I decided that it was impossible for my mind to grasp concepts like Infinity or Eternity, and I concluded we humans possess too few senses to do so. We can invent symbols for such states, of course, but we cannot conceive of experiencing them. I decided that if infinity and eternity were too tough for me, then god was equally difficult. Disbelief or belief were both impossible. From a jolly atheism I moved to a glum agnosticism: I didn’t know because I couldn’t know. Either pro or con was too arrogant an assertion for a dumb ass like me. But I have a hunch….

A hunch!! Ha! Sounds right to me…

Not the highest traffic blog in the world eh? heh heh

I shared this awesome article by Sam Harris but I wanted to repost it and comment on it anyway.

Sam makes two points crystal clear. One, that atheism as a movement or calling ourselves atheists is counterproductive. And silly. And two, that atheists shouldn’t throw the baby of spirituality out with the bathwater of religion and credulity.

But he also makes another much more minor point that I like. The fight for reason needs to continue on many fronts. So keep banging away Hitch and Dawk!

So, I finally saw Michael Moore’s SiCKO tonight, and it blew me away.

To be honest, I wasn’t expecting to be blown away. Something about Fahrenheit 9/11
didn’t sit well with me. I don’t think I ever really knew what it was that I didn’t like; whatever it was, I was more than a little suspicious of Moore’s latest offering. But I went, cuz, well, love him or hate him, he’s “my people.”

Anyway, by the end of the movie, I had a mini-revelation about what it was I didn’t like about Fahrenheit, and it was directly related to what it was that I couldn’t resist about SiCKO. Even though I laughed at all the right places in Fahrenheit, and was appropriately outraged all throughout, I remember feeling a little perplexed at the end of it, and probably more than a little hopeless.

SiCKO, on the other hand, ends with a message of hope. A strong message in fact. This movie is much more about what is possible than what is wrong. Moore spends more time in the four countries in which universal health care works than he does showing grievous examples of America’s system.

It might just be that the issue raised in Fahrenheit necessitated the vituperative approach (since there really wasn’t a bloody thing anyone could do anyway), and that just getting pissed about something pretty much sucks no matter how right you may be.

Anyway, Moore has no doubt already been criticized for all of this and more . For that matter, SiCKO’s change in tone may well have been a conscious choice on his part in response to that criticism (but that didn’t stop it from being a revelation to me!).

I’m Canadian, and I just had a few surgeries the last couple years. So, you could hardly be blamed for guessing that my strongest reaction I had to SiCKO was to feel extremely relieved about living in a country with universal health care. But actually it wasn’t. Instead, I felt an overwhelming sense of hope: a strange and unknown feeling the last few years.

I think it’s the same feeling I get when I marvel at how early all the US presidential candidates are lining up. It’s the same feeling I get when I see people like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens speaking their minds and gaining an audience.