|
Tuesday, August 30, 2005 Answers for Simon Simon, You are welcome to quote anything from the website or the blogs. My answers are below within: Hi Michael, Here are the questions for you regarding my piece for the Observer. If you can answer as fully as time allows I would be extremely grateful. I'm finding your website fascinating and very useful. I would like to quote, in brief, a couple of lines here and there, esp. regarding how you became involved with Hair and your thoughts on some other productions and Hair's long post-Sixties life. Is this OK? 1. Would you agree that Hair appears as relevant now as it did in the late Sixties? Is it possible to explain why? Yes, Hair is about freedom, peace and love. Its lessons are permanent and universal. The particular concentration on the Vietnam War resonates with the current Iraq invasion. Like many classics which are dated in period and story, Hair creates an area for thought and introspection. 2. Were you always confident that the first productions would hit such a deep groove with so many people? What were the most extreme reactions either way? Never even thought about it. I wanted to do Hair because I loved it. It tells a story of great meaning. It is a dialogue between generations. Reactions were almost all positive though we had to fight to preserve our right to present it, even all the way to the US Supreme Court. Some are so affected by Hair that they come once a week like going to church. Others, like the astronauts who walked out after the flag scene, were unable to open up to the fact that 'those dirty hippies were handling the flag'. (the flag scene was vetted by a General military school friend of mine so it was according to the book) 3. What are your strongest memories about the controversy regarding the censorship issues in London in 1968? Not many, except great excitement that finally the censor was going to be put to rest. 4. Is it possible to contrast the original reactions to Hair in the UK and US? Tough question to answer. What comes to mind is in the US the Vietnam situation was acute and 1968 was year of great turmoil, Bobby, Martin, Columbia riots, Yuppies at the Democratic Convention so there was visceral reaction. While in the UK I think it was more ideological and intellectual concerning the areas of freedom. Also the UK was the fountainhead, i.e. The Beatles, the Cream and the Rolling Stones, et al. 5. Hair seems to have had a defining effect on those who were involved, and as far as I can tell everyone speaks of it not only with great fondness but also with the suggestion that their lives were indelibly changed by it. I assume this was also the case with you? Can you elaborate? Have been there been times in your life when Hair has also been a burden? Hair has had an effect on almost everyone who has been involved. Not only those on stage but back stage, off stage and in the audience. It has had a cathartic effect on so many. In my case it became the culmination of a life changing situation from a military industrial hawk to a mind altered dove. I, like many, could look forward with hope. One often wonders where Hair really came from and from whence its power. Certainly it has a spiritual power to create a great deal of love between many who have been involved. 6. Have there been any attempts to update Hair radically in the past, and did they work? No, and I don't think they ever will. Even small tinkering is in error. One of the charms of Hair is its rawness. 7. Did you see Hair at the Old Vic in the early 90s? If so, what did you think of it? I did not see it. I was told by original tribe members that it was terrible. So I avoided it. Hair should not be done by strictly commercial producers nor dominated by number crunchers. It is a work of affection and needs to be produced with TLC. I have done over 30 productions of Hair. The two which were dominated by commercial considerations did not work. The Director is critical. The reasons behind the Producer paramount. 8. When people talk to you about Hair, is there one thing they mention/remember/means more to them than anything else? When they saw Hair. Where they saw it. Who they were with. And what they were wearing. 9. What was your reaction when The Gate/Daniel first told you of their plans for a new updated version? I am not aware of any major updated versions of HAIR. 10. What sort of reaction do you hope to get from the new version? ??? 11. There are plans to have some nudity in the Gate version. Almost 40 years on, this still seems to be rather taboo on the stage, even on the fringe, and in some quarters will probably create as much moral outrage as the more extreme directly political elements. What are your thoughts on this? Nudity is an important element in Hair. It refers to 'The Emperor's Clothes'. Certainly in this era of American imperial hubris that tale bears consideration. Frankly the nudity, at the end of Act 1, is what has brought a lot of people into see Hair. Then we have them for the messages in the second act which mean so much. 14. Do you plan to come over to see it? Unfortunately I cannot. We are having a major Hair Tribal Reunion and I will be dealing with the aftermath. I do wish The Gate the very best. Thanks again for helping me with this. With good wishes, Simon Simon Garfield Senior feature writer, The Observer My best wishes, Peace and Love, Michael --Those who have experienced altered forms of consciousness, by whatever means, never forget that space in which they have been. Now that they have learned how to function within the system, it is time they act to run it. MB > Sunday, August 14, 2005 "God said it. I believe it. That settles it" So says a bumper sticker seen on cars of the Religious Right in Red country. I cannot help but wonder how, when, or where God said it. Was it in a book? If so, a book written by whom? Now we are being put on dangerous ground by our President who is trying to marry politics into religion or is it the reverse? Either way his promotion of I.D. (Intelligent Design) surely bridges the separation of church and state. Yet this was a founding principle for our founding fathers. Hopefully Bush truly believes in what he his saying, but he won't be the first President who believes in providential history. The present administration is reeling from sinking polls; Rummy's DOD seems more like DOA. Then there's Rovegate, the Downing Street Memos, Cindy Sheehan all capped by this horribly mistaken war. But anything goes that will keep people from examining the underbelly of lies and corruption that characterize this administration. Of course fear is the mantra so let us bring in religion, so frequently the precursor to fear. Intelligent Design is the sheep in wolves clothing. The wolf is Creationism. We are asked to believe in the existence of a serious debate within the scientific community between Evolution and Intelligent Design when there is no basis for debate. The scientific leaders and intellects recognize I.D. as a dependent on nothing but faith. Because there is no scientific evidence I.D., depends on the Supernatural. The I.D. movement is very smart stealth PR, proclaiming as does Bush that all they want is discussion. But it is a specious premise. Creationism is supported by the Radical Religious Right who are offended by the elitist Blue, liberal, so called secular domination of our courts and the media. Reds want Christian prayers in schools, abolishment of any rights for gays, particularly marriage. Women's right of choice is being defined as a crime. Reds support religious artifacts in public spaces. Most proclaim Terry Schiavo was murdered. This more radical side is creating an American Taliban. A benign god would be good. All our wars have been fought in the name of God and blessed by God. If he (in Christianity, as well as Islam and Judaism, God is never a she) is the Great Architect, why do we have wars, pestilence, starvation and an endangered ecology? Are these horrific aspects and prospects for humanity not the products of a grand designer also? And if such a grand designer exists, where, pray tell, is his or her intelligence? Sunday, August 07, 2005 Iran and US - At The Abyss I spent some time in Iran, trading for Intrafi and gleaning information for Jack Kennedy who, at that time, was a Senator. My first times there were in the late 50's. The Shah had been back on the throne since 1953. He was re-installed by violent local demonstrations backed by the British and Americans. Oil, of course, was the reason. There had been a power struggle between Mohammed Mossedgh, the Prime Minister, and the Shah. Mossedgh was nationalizing the oil industry and flirting with the Russians. The British, under Churchill, depended on Iran for oil. They asked Eisenhower for help. Kim Roosevelt of the CIA was given the job and his British counterpart was Peter Sterling. They were successful in removing Mossedgh and getting the Shah back from Italy where he had fled. There were two sides to this story, a local power struggle and the interference of foreigners from the UK and US. On my various trips there I had the opportunity to observe quite a bit of the local scene and in particular to spend time with the Shah's family. There was no question about their affection for the US. As FDR had said about Somosa (the US installed dictator of Nicaragua), "He may be a son-of-a-bitch, but he is our son-of-a-bitch." However the Shah was no son-o-a-bitch. Yes, he was increasingly grand in public appearances. In most ways he was only reflecting proud side of the Iranian people. Their great Persian heritage far exceeded the history of the US and for that matter of England. After all it was only Alexander who was able to conquer that empire. Personally the Shah was quite shy and very pleasant to be with. Knowledge of English history could have helped the Shah is his struggle during the later days of his reign. Henry VIII had two great problems, the Barons and the Clergy. He took on the Clergy and won. Elizabeth had to deal with the Barons. The Shah took on the Ayatollahs and the great Landlords at the same time. He was trying to curb the power of the clergy and see a more equitable distribution of land. He was moving his country more into the secular westernized form of government. He was a great promoter, with western backing, of the advance of nuclear power, a move of great prescience. Meanwhile the clergy, many from out of Iran, were vilifying him and the Savak (interior police). They had the support of many of the liberal media over the world. When the error of the Shah's double challenges became apparent the clergy under the guise of religion began to make their moves. The US government, under Carter, stood back and as many said, pulled the rug out from under the Shah. By this time he was a very ill man and it is doubtful that he had the strength to be his usual self. Many have said that the US administration acted correctly in not going to his side as they had decades before; that we had no business in interfering in local scenes. Of course such an attitude totally ignores the constant interference of our government then and now in foreign affairs. Our adventures in overseas activities are constantly coming home in the most negative ways. Current, recent and past administrations have ignored our founding fathers warnings that we have no foreign entanglements. Look at the most recent situation, the flip flops with Saddam Hussein. So what did losing the Shah mean? To US a mortal enemy has emerged not only seizing our embassy but supporting terrorism worldwide. They have undone the relations with Israel and supported the terrorist movement there. Now they plan to build nuclear weapons which can only increase the destabilization of the area and the world. For sure let us not forget the blood bath of Iranians which has followed the clergy's rise to power. Nothing ever done by the Savak can compare with what has followed and exists nowadays in Iran. Our past, recent and current actions have created an increasingly dangerous situation for the peace of the world. I was driving once with a very knowlegeable and important editor who asked what I thought was the most serious problem in the Middle East. I said it all started with losing the Shah in Iran. He agreed. What would I have done? After exhausting every possible negotiation and maneuver and as opposed to war as I am, I would have invaded Iran instead of Iraq. If we are going to follow our strategic interests that would have been the most pragmatic action. A Bush-like administration will probably do it anyway... if we are doubtfully capable after the debacles of Afghanistan and Iraq. |
ARTICLES
OF NOTE
Remarks for Friends of Conservation Probably Our Major Problem Today All In The Name You Give It We All Have The Same Problems Questions About HAIR Fury, Rage, Sadness, Embarrassed, Ashamed Answers for Simon "But I Can't Make A Difference" "God said it. I believe it. That settles it" ARCHIVES December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005
|
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
"But I Can't Make A Difference"
Perhaps we cannot remake the world and even have much effect on the nation. We can accomplish things worthwhile and make a lasting impression. The best way to do that is go local.
Take a local approach to your concerns. This can be working within existing local structures or in your cyberspace. This can be participating in for example the local school, zoning or library boards or as many of us do, edit interactive political list and some, as I, write blogs. Participation is critical. Too many opt out of actively being involved. Then we have all sorts of complaints about government and politicians. What can we expect if we are not going to take the time to be involve?
Community ownership of common infrastructure and facilities are important and can be very beneficial to all. In an opposite position it is very necessary to protect private ownership. There was recently an astonishing decision by the Supreme Court allowing condemnation of private property for private development. Local ordnances are seriously challenging this.
Personal liberties are under serious pressure throughout the country. Not only are such lists, as library records are no longer sacrosanct, all sorts of private records are being made public. Police oversight is so important. And the most effective oversight is that done by local citizens.
Don't forget our interdependence is not only national but worldwide. We are living nowadays in an increasingly smaller nation and likewise a smaller world. The population explosion is overtaking or ecological system. Not respecting this is what wars are made from. For the sole advantage of the military industrial/banking/oil establishment.
So let us dig in and participate if only to have others see and hear our points. We have to realize tat the media is not going to do it for us.
We had better do it for ourselves!
posted by Michael at 12:21 PM 1 comments email this post to a friend: