ceebeegee: (Red Heather)
Sorry I haven't updated in so long--my work network decided to block blogging sites so I can update there now, which is where I usually had the leisure. SIGH.

Anyway, so today after classes I had picked up a Meetup soccer game with a group with whom I've played before. But not in a while--I think the last time I played with them was sometime last spring. Between classes and my league team, just haven't had the time (and frankly, until mid-November or so, didn't really have the discretionary income. But now things are much better financially).

So the game was down in the Bowery at one of the worst fields in the city, cement covered with a thin coating of turk with big patches in place. But whatever, it was great just playing. However it had started to snow about an hour before the game, and the snow, alternating with freezing rain, continued throughout the whole game. So--challenging, cold, but fun. We ended up playing full field and I acquitted myself fairly decently. No goals (I was really inhibited under those conditions--I'm terrified of getting hurt again) so my touches weren't that great but neither were anyone else's. I did have several solid, pretty assists so I was happy--one of my assists had like five guys, including several on the other team, complimenting me. I'll take it :)

Afterward we all went to a nearby bar to quaff beers. I had an awesome time shooting the breeze with a bunch of guys, about "where are you from" and "you're a SOCCER COACH, that's awesome!" and Peruvian cuisine and whatnot. One of the guys even asked me if I wanted to go dancing with him (I'd been talking about my club days in DC--oh the memories!--and how much I loved dancing) and another at one point said to the group about me "she's beautiful, she's intelligent, she's got good soccer skills..." and then another guy said something to him in Spanish which made the guys smile. Anyw, lots of fun. Now here's where it got--annoying. There's a girl who's attached to this group--she's listed in the meetup as "assistant organizer" and I've seen her at pretty much all the games. I'm not sure how she got attached because she's not a good soccer player, but you know, sometimes you just like hanging out with a group. That's fine. What's weird is how...hostile she always seems to be toward me and, as far as I can recall, other women who've shown up for these games. (There aren't many, I'm one of the few. In fact today there were only two of us amongst 18 guys.) She's always been cold, unfriendly and as I realized this, I just gave her a wide berth. Today we get to the bar and she's already there--she left halfway through the game because of the weather. We sit down and there's a menu in front of her. After a few minutes I ask her if she's still looking at the menu (because I'm hungry and would like to look it over). Remember, she's already been there at least 20 minutes, with a menu. She says to me curtly "yes. I am." Okay, whatever--you could've been friendlier about that but I'm not going to go out of my way to take offense.

But a little while later the guys and I are talking about religion--most of them (being South American) are Roman Catholic and we start discussing the difference between Roman Catholicism and Episcopalianism. I start saying "well, the main difference is political--we do not follow the Pope, we're part of a different power structure and have our own head.. But the structure of the mass is essentially the same and we have very similar styles..." She cuts me off "they're not similar, we don't talk about the Virgin Mary at all."

Okay, an academic aside here. Not having the Hail Mary as part of your Mass vs. "not talking about the Virgin Mary" are two different things. For one thing, I don't think the Catholics say Hail Marys during the Mass, I think that's a private--albeit very common--prayer, said as a penance after confession. Second, we DO "talk about Mary" in other ways. She shows up frequently in the Gospels, and the Magnificat--Mary's response to the Annunciation ("My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior....")--has been set to music many, many times in the Anglican tradition. I could sing a whole setting to you right now that I learned as a child, I remember it so well. For that matter, the Hail Mary has also been set to music many times in the Anglican tradition, the Bach/Gounod setting being one of the most well-known. Mary is certainly not ignored in the Episcopal church, although she is given more prominence within the Catholic church.

Anyway. I responded "what? Yes, we do--some parishes do at any rate." She took umbrage at this and started "I'm a lifelong confirmed Episcopalian--" Me: "As am I." "And I'm telling you we don't talk about the Virgin Mary!" I paused and said carefully "Well, it sounds like your parish does not. But Episcopal styles of worship vary greatly across the US--some are low church and some are high church, it's not as uniform as Roman Catholic services are. Very high church parishes often DO talk about Mary more because those types of parishes prefer the Catholic style even if they don't want to be part of the Catholic structure--" She got REALLY annoyed at this and kept trying to impress me with her "lifelong Episcopal" street cred. I got so annoyed, I was tempted to say "Yes, and my step-grandfather was an Episcopal priest who founded St. Andrew's school in Boca Raton. And my cousin was the Dean of Grace Cathedral in San Francisco, who also baptized me--AT the Cathedral. You want pictures?" Luckily I resisted that urge because argument by authority is weak. You're not right because you have a degree in a subject or because of your personal background--you're right because your argument makes sense or your facts are correct.

It just...really pissed me off, I have to say. It was so pointlessly antagonistic. First, her jumping in to correct me like that, then to try to shut me up by citing her "lifelong" status. Stow it, girl. You have no idea who you're talking to, and you're inarticulate. Because I thought about it and a big part of the problem (besides her rudeness) was her wording--"we don't talk about the Virgin Mary at all." She should've said "we tend not to have the Marian emphasis that Roman Catholic churches do, although that varies by parish and region." THAT would've been nuanced, would've opened up the conversation in a new direction, would've been respectful.

So, because I was SO annoyed, I started explaining to the rest of the table what I just said above in my little academic aside. I talked about the Magnificat, about low church versus high church, about the similarities between RC masses and Episcopal masses [certain prayers MUST be said or sung, in a certain order--the Kyrie, Gloria Patri, the Agnus Dei, the Sanctus/Benedictus, etc.--if you've ever seen Agnes of God, they sprinkle the prayers throughout the script in the proper order]--plus you have the sacrament of Communion (with the elevation of the host), the lighting of the candles--in order for it to be a proper mass, both churches have these structural similarities. THEN I started talking about the difference between transubstantiation (Catholics believe during the elevation of the host an actual, literal miracle happens--the bread is turned into the flesh of Christ) whereas Episcopalians believe something happens, Christ's presence is in the Host, we're just not sure exactly how.

THEN I talked about St. Mary's in Times Square, the church I used to attend, which is ridiculously high church. I was explaining how during the Adoration of the Cross you actually kiss it, which is so Catholic I felt uncomfortable. I mean, I'm pretty high church but the next step after that is kissing the Pope's ring! I said how they frequently featured Marian tradition within their services.

So basically I opened up the floodgates and vomited all this onto the table and directed it all to the guys with a sweet Southern smile on my face. And mission accomplished because it SHUT HER THE FUCK UP. There was nothing she could say to that, I too obviously knew my stuff. And I hope she felt stupid and I don't feel bad. If she hadn't been so obnoxious and rude I probably would've made it more of a conversation as opposed to an impromptu lecture but...ugh, I was just so annoyed!

And what it really comes down to is territoriality and...well, I'm going to come right out and say it, only because at my age I've seen this enough times that modesty be damned. She's jealous. She's not a good soccer player, she's not attractive and a lot of these guys were being friendly to me. She could've been cool--most of these soccer groups are super cool--but no, she had to try to make me feel unwelcome, like I was intruding. And honey, that will backfire. I know exactly how to treat women like you. I become even nicer, smile even more, ignore your rudeness and chat the guys up even more. (THEY were friendly as hell to me--THEY were nice.) Women like that absolutely HATE it when you refuse to play on their terms, because it makes them look petty. Kill 'em with kindness, that's the Southern way. Honey, you've just triggered the heat-seeking missiles ;)
ceebeegee: (Default)
As most people on my flist have heard, Clay Aiken has come out.

This shocks almost no one, that I know. However what I think is so cool about this is the opportunity, the teachable moment (as they say in pedagogy) for conservative Christianity to confront the reality of homosexuality. Clay is a known Christian--he is a Southern Baptist, and as a denomination they're very conservative (very anti-feminist and anti-gay). Clay himself is not conservative, he's more along the lines of the Jimmy Carter mold--raised SB, trying to reform the church from within. Anyway, his faith isn't going anywhere--he's still a Christian and he's STILL GAY. He's been gay all along, at the same time that he was attending services, praying with people, praising God. It's a whole new world, people. I hope every one of his fellow parishioners and Southern Baptists all over America think about that.

Ryan and I have talked about this many times--he is also a Christian, and refuses to let himself be pushed out or made to feel unwelcome. And he shouldn't. Christianity is about love, not hatred--Jesus didn't say dick about dick. Jesus's ministry can be boiled down to two statements--Love God, and Love each other. Those of us who are liberal Christians have to take back our faith and not let it be hijacked by people with hatred in their hearts.
ceebeegee: (Easter)
I went to Good Friday services this evening and sat through a long-ass (2 hour) service. There was a reading (plainchant, really) of the Passion (St. John's version), a veneration of the cross and a bunch of other things that took up lots of time. St. Mary's can eat up some darn time! I remember an Easter vigil service that was going on 3 hours! At any rate, as I was leaving the altar after Communion, I noticed this beautiful little chapel off to the right, filled with flora. After the service I snuck over there and checked it out--it was this tiny little side chapel (St. Mary's has a bunch of side chapels) that had all these floral arrangements clustered around the altar--I'm assuming they're altar flowers for the Easter services. The chapel was FULL of them, just jam-packed with beautiful flowers--lilies and roses and azeleas and honeysuckle and callalilies and orchids...just so beautiful. Beautiful beyond words. I hooked in there and obviously several other parishioners had also noticed the chapel because I was joined by at least 7 other people. We all sat in the chairs or lit candles, just gazing at this beauty. It was SO beautiful. If there'd been a chapel in the secret garden, it would've looked like this.

I sat there for a long while, just breathing in the lilies and the roses, and lit candles for my grandparents. I always think about my maternal grandparents at that church, since it's so actor-friendly.
ceebeegee: (golden hearts)
As we all know, many of my friends are gay. And I'm a Christian--specifically an Episcopalian. I've often been forced to tread the line between validating my gay (and gay-friendly) friends venting/criticism about how Christianity has treated them, which has often been terrible, and at the same time, addressing what I sometimes feel is unfair characterization of all Christianity or outright Christianity-bashing. I often feel compelled to point out "not ALL Christians are like that, I promise." I myself am an example that all Christians are not homophobic--as is Paula, as is Ryan, as is my mother. My church has had gay priests, and has taken progressive stances on other social issues, like ordination of women, support of ERA, denunciation of apartheid, and most topically, specifically declared "homosexuals are 'children of God' and 'entitled to full civil rights.'"

A few years ago, the US Episcopal Church went a step further--the bishops elected an openly gay bishop, Rev. Gene Robinson. (They also just recently elected the first female Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church--yay us!) This set off quite a firestorm, as you can imagine. Quite a few parishes in the US denounced Rev. Robinson's election, citing "Scripture," and threatened to leave the Mother Church. Also, in the rest of the world, there was negative reaction, mostly from parishes in central Africa but from other places as well. It bears noting that a similar reaction was felt when they started ordaining women in the '70s.

And now, in the US, the dissenting homophobes have made it official--7 Virginia parishes have voted to pick up their toys and go home. (Which may be a hell of a lot more difficult than they expect--that property and all the attendants goodies belong to the Mother Church, not to the parishes--if they leave, they will be starting from scratch.) Oh and on a completely random note, I am one degree of separation from the Bishop Lee in the article--his daughter-in-law Celeste is the sister of my (and [livejournal.com profile] goldilocksprime's good friend Madeleine from Sweet Briar).

My initial reaction, to these dissenting erstwhile Episcopalians, was "Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out." (Especially The Falls Church--although they're the eponymous church in my home town, I can't stand that parish. They tried to shut down a city street so they could have more room to park for their service--they failed and I now make a point of driving through that street as often as possible. Heh, heh, heh...) I laughed at their constant invocation of "Scripture"--we're Episcopalians, not Baptists. We do NOT hit people over the head with the Bible--the BCP (Book of Common Prayer, which has all the daily and yearly Offices (i.e., services) and prayers) is a MUCH bigger deal to us than the Bible. I've never even read the Bible all the way through--but I can tell you what the seven sacraments are (Baptism, Confirmation, Marriage, Confession/Reconciliation, Communion, Ordination, Unction), and what the five texts that are spoken or sung through almost all liturgies (Kyrie, Gloria, the Credo, Sanctus-Benedictus, Angus Dei--if you've ever seen Agnes of God, she sings these texts off-stage throughout the play). To Episcopalians, the liturgy is a BIG DEAL--a former priest of my old parish in Arlington (who died of AIDS in the late '80s--we've had gay priests all along) was, like, OBSESSED with making the liturgy as perfect as possible. It was a point of pride to him when everything went off without a hitch, especially for major feast days. As important as the Bible obviously is to Christians, it's highly contradictory and confusing--Levicticus alone is craziness. Nobody follows all those rules--and I can guarantee you that the homophobes who are so quick to cite Scripture don't.

Notwithstanding my limited knowledge of the Bible, I have read the Gospels, and I can tell you this--Jesus's two most important commandments were Love God, and Love Each Other. He also never said anything about homosexuality. I think He had more important things to worry about than two people who love each other and want to get married--regardless of gender. As I so eloquently put it to my mother, "Jesus didn't say dick about dick." (My mother was slightly horrified--I said "Mom, sometimes you have to be vulgar to make your point.")

But now--although I'm still terribly disappointed in these prodigal sons, I can still be proud that most of the US Episcopal Church will hold together in the face of this challenge. That most of us are standing up and saying "We are ALL children of God. We ALL deserve the same rights." And not just in the US but other countries as well--the Anglican Church of Canada and the Scottish Episcopal Church have all taken similar steps forward in openly welcoming our brethren who happen to be gay. It's going to be rough for awhile and we may never get those prodigals back, but I believe eventually the majority of Christians will come around to this.

I just want you guys to know I am an Episcopalian (and therefore a Christian)--and I love you guys, and support every right for you. And not just me but my church feels that way as well.
ceebeegee: (Easter)
...if the women at your service guild are already asking, "Is it too early for wine?" at a 10:30 a.m. meeting, and the answer is, "Of course not."

...when you watch Star Wars and they say "May the Force be with you", and you automatically reply "And with thy spirit."

...if someone says, "Let us pray" and you automatically hit your knees.

...if you recognize your neighbor, or rector, in the local liquor store *and* go over to greet him/her.

...if you think the height of haute cuisine is a little, triangular cucumber sandwich on white bread, crusts excised, stuck together...with a toothpick.

...if you know the meaning of "garth," "nave," and "undercroft"...AND can locate two out of the three.

...if you have totally memorized Rite I, Rite II and the first three episodes of The Vicar of Dibley.

...if you know the difference between a surplice and a cotta...and the appropriate! use of each.

...if hearing people pray in the language of "justwanna" makes you want to scream.

...if words like: "vouchsafe," "oblation," "supplications," "succor," "bewail," "wherefore," "dost," and "very" (in its archaic sense) are familiar to you even if you don't have a clue what they mean.

...if you can rattle off such tongue twisters like: "...who made there by his one oblation of himself once offered a full and perfect sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the world" and "Wherefore, O Lord and Heavenly Father, we thy people, do celebrate and make here with these gifts which we offer unto thee, the memorial thy Son hath commanded us to make..." without missing a beat.

...if your choir director suggests discussing something over a beer after choir rehearsal.

...if you catch yourself genuflecting or bowing as you enter a row of seats in a theater.

...if you can pronounce: "innumerable benefits procured unto us by the same."

...if you ever find yourself saying, "Oh, but we've never done it that way before."

...if, when visiting a Roman Church, you are the only Ah-men amongst a sea of Ai-mens.

...if your covered dish for the potluck dinner is escargot in puff shells.

...if you know "Smokey Mary's" is a church, not a bar. (Note--hell, it's MY church!)

...if you know that a sursum corda is not a surgical procedure.

...if you don't think Agnus Dei is a woman.

...if your picnic basket has sterling knives and forks (entree, fish, salad and cake).

...if you know that the nave is not a playing card.

...if your friend said "I'm truly sorry..." and you replied, "and you humbly repent?"

...if you know that the Senior Warden and the Junior Warden are not positions in the local prison.

...if you think the most serious breach of propriety one can commit is failure to chill the salad forks.

...if when asked, "Sister/Brother, have you accepted Jesus as your personal savior?" you respond "But isn't that a bit selfish?"

...if you think cheese and crackers are as essential as receiving the Sacred Host...

And finally...if you reach a point when you're not sure about anything theologically but you still feel completely at home at the altar rail and somehow know you're meeting God there, even though you can't begin to understand how.
ceebeegee: (Default)
Okay, so I watched A Wrinkle in Time last night on ABC. Altogether pretty good.

What I didn't like:

*The pacing. Deadly slow. It easily could've been trimmed down from three to two hours.

*The ending. The book's ending is deliberately anti-climactic because they time-tesser back and end up returning home "only" five minutes later. In the movie, they return, there's a big teary reunion of the parents, a big teary farewell with the witches, a gratuitous (although rather sweet) final scene on the starwatching rock between Meg and Calvin AND a voiceover along the lines of "we lived happily ever after."

*The scene where they're naming the various Earth fighters against the dark thing: they name Marie Curie, Einstein, Shakespeare et al. but they leave out the name of Jesus. Come on, guys. That moment is highlighted in the book.

*Mrs. Which (the one with the quotations). Just didn't do me. Way too cutesy.

*The overall feeling of "we're making this for children"--I guess what I mean is excessive sentimentality. The book is fairly unsentimental--maybe her one lapse in that direction is the "dark cloud" that's basically physicalized evil, but I'm not sure I can think of a better way to depict that for children. There's a lot of cutesiness in the movie, mainly in the tone and the actors. Alfre Woodard would've impressed me more if she'd been weirder and thrown away her part more.

*The actors playing the twins. Sandy and Dennys are ostentatiously "normal" kids, as a deliberate contrast to Meg and Charles Wallace, and furthermore they're athletes. These kids looked too quirky, and were dressed up.

Now, what I did like:

*Really, most of it. They did a pretty decent job.

*The three main children (Meg, Charles Wallace and Calvin) are EXCELLENT. Especially the actor playing CW--that is a difficult role to cast, because he has to look 4-5, has to actually BE intelligent, and has to be able really to ACT, because of his takeover by IT. This kid (David Dorfman) rocked. Completely believable in the role.

*Camazotz was fuckin' spooky as hell. They approach the town where all the houses look alike and it's dark and stormy outside--there's a constant greyness. Oh man, it was cool.

*They handled Charles's takeover by IT interestingly--the Man with the Red Eyes almost has to "woo" CW. He plays games with him where he appeals to CW's intelligence and curiosity and it makes sense. They also dramatized the scene where Meg rescues CW which is completely understandable because that scene is almost entirely interior in the book. It would be hard to have a scene in a movie that consists of a kid staring at a brain and his sister thinking about him for several minutes, and finally saying "I love you." In the movie, CW and the man with the red eyes are in a room taunting Meg, and she's taken into several alternative realities, and finally says she loves him, and notices this has a deleterious effect on the Man with the Red Eyes. She repeats it, and busts up the House of IT. IT is revealed beneath the floor as a giant brain with almost-tentacles--creepy as hell.

Other thoughts:

They simplified the message: the book has many messages, which include the power of love (most important, IMO) and especially that love trumps intellect (very interesting in light of how rationalist L'Engle clearly is), the beauty of individuality and the false comfort of conformity, Good vs. Evil. It seemed to me they downplayed the other themes in favor of the beauty of individualty--after Meg rescues CW, she makes a speech to the residents of Camazotz reiterating that "like and equal are not the same." (I wonder if L'Engle was specifically addressing communism with that theme, BTW.)
ceebeegee: (Default)
Uh. Exhausted today. I stayed up too late last night putting together Doug's costume for Hillside. I hope it works.

While I was sewing, I watched a program on the History Channel about the search for Noah's Ark on Mount Ararat in Turkey. Fa-sci-na-ting. Absolutely fascinating. Apparently there have been many sightings over the years--a couple of people have actually claimed to see an actual ark, with decks and cages and a ladder. Also there have been shadowy photographs and CIA satellite images. Right now the mountain is closed by the government of Turkey because of fighting with the Kurds, but explorers are hoping to reopen it.

Just imagine, if we actually verified Noah's Ark. Just imagine...I would faint. The history...Noah's Ark...
ceebeegee: (Default)
I watched this very interesting documentary-style program on ABC last, all about Jesus and Paul. It was a little too much Paul and not enough Jesus, and I wasn't crazy about the music (just stick with Middle Eastern flutes and whatnot, guys, don't get fancy) but other than that, very cool. There's always great Jesus TV during Holy Week.

I don't know as much about the early church as I'd like. Being an Episcopalian, we don't focus on the Bible as much as Protestants do, and what I know of it, I've mostly learned on my own. Paul was one peripatetic guy. It's amazing to hear about where he traveled, especially when you consider how primitive public transportation must've been then. The end of the program was especially interesting, telling about how Paul, an old man, was finally being tried in Rome, and he shared a cell with Peter. Something about the confluence of those two things--ancient Rome and the infancy of Christianity, the end of one era, the beginning of another. Fascinating.
ceebeegee: (Default)
I am craving freshly baked semi-sweet chocolate chip cookies right now. I gave up sweets for Lent, and the cravings haven't been too bad until now. Mmm...Easter is less than two weeks away.
ceebeegee: (Default)
I really want to see Angels in America, which Duncan taped last night. I've been reading some incredible reviews for it and the imagery alone is enough to send me into director-frenzy. That enormous angel, drifting into a room; the inexorable approach of modernity--what an incredible metaphor for the '80s, and how AIDS forced America to acknowledge the gay subculture. The whole idea of the approach of modernity ("What rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards Bethlehem to be born again?")--I was telling Chris on Saturday I remember Nancy Reagan talking about the '60s; she said something about "this terrible time in our country's history." Terrible? The '60s? It was tumultuous, certainly, and when certain elements played out the worst-case scenario the results were terrible (the Manson murders were the dark side of the counter-culture, Kent State was the worst imaginable price for political involvement--in fact several of the victims weren't even protesting). But to characterize the '60s as terrible overall? Without the '60s we might still have segregated lunch counters. And the black vote for all intents and purposes wouldn't exist. Ole Miss would still be white-only. There would be no birth control pill. And no Jimi Hendrix or Janis Joplin! The '60s jump-started the modern era, as far as American values were concerned.

Here's a good quotation from a poster on Television Without Pity about Angels in America:

Though next week's installment ("Perestroika") is far heavier on the fantasy elements, it actually ties up a lot of the thematic threads (and also hits the hopeful, redemptive note many seem to have wanted). "Millennium Approaches" is *supposed* to leave you with something of a confused/suspended/paralyzed feeling. Millennial tropes are frequently associated with apocalyptic connotations. Apocalypse = end of the world, i.e. radical, disorienting, paralyzing change. In the '80s, AIDS on the one hand and the increasing prominence of the gay community on the other each represented a kind of apocalypse for two very different American subcultures. They thus present very apt metaphors by which to explore the ways we as humans, and more specifically as Americans, resist and fear change. Secondary metaphors--immigration, travel, the Reagan revolution, etc.--echo this theme.

At the same time, we humans (and more specifically we Americans) also *court* change in the form of (expected) progress. This thematic flipside is explored more in "Perestroika," whose title refers to the Gorbachev-led program of reform that ended communist rule in the Soviet Union ("perestroika" translates as "restructuring"). This is dramatized by (minor spoiler) the angels telling Prior that his job as Prophet is to stop humans from pursuing change. His response to this directive is a turning point in the play.

There are some other important themes--the ways in which identity and community both enable and limit (notice that every single character is ethnically and/or religiously marked--even the white Prior is so WASPy that he can trace his lineage back beyond the Pilgrims); ambivalence vs. belief (dramatized most forcefully by Louis and Joe); and the meaning of fidelity--to oneself and to others. But I think constancy and change are the most fundamental driving themes here. If you keep those in mind as you watch next week it may seem to cohere a bit more, though it will never "make sense" in a conventional linear way. Which is precisely what makes it so special and beautiful.


Must--see--it.
ceebeegee: (Default)
I can't fathom the kind of hate that would compel someone to come to long Island all the way from Kansas, to hold up signs that says "God Hates Fags." And to bring your kids? These little ones given to your trust, and you teach them to hate? They're holding up signs and spouting unspeakable things, instead of playing with their toys and sleeping in a warm bed? I don't understand any of this.

I'm always torn when it comes to people like this. My first instinct is to ignore them, but then there's the idea of "for evil to triumph, the only requirement is for good people to do nothing." Is it strategic or just cowardly (or lazy) to ignore something like this? Are the F--- P-----es of the world looking for attention, or is there another agenda? So then my reaction is to yell back, because what they say and represent gets me so viscerally. But realistically I know that wouldn't accomplish anything--you'd have two people yelling instead of one. But I don't think I'm evolved enough to return love for hate. I know I should but that's really hard. I have a very difficult time with the whole "turn of the other cheek" of the Christian philosophy. I am a warrior. Maybe the struggle against hatred requires teachers and people who love, and not warriors. Maybe I should beat my sword back into a plowshare.
ceebeegee: (Default)
Despicable.

Way to murder a baby there, Anonymous Oh-So-Brave Palestinian. Way to target not only civilians, but civilians celebrating one of their most solemn holidays. Have fun in Hell. Hope you brought your flipflops.
ceebeegee: (Default)
I got the book in the mail that I'd ordered last week from Amazon, Escape to Witch Mountain. For those who only know the movie, it's very different. It's much darker for one thing--the kids are older, around 12 and 14, and their odd physical appearance is stressed more ("...their pale hair and olive skins, their slenderness, and their dark-blue eyes that were almost black") so they're not quite so cinematically cute as Ike Eisenmann and Kim Richards were. Also, Tia cannot talk (audibly). And it's got a very late '60s feel to it, with its portrayal of the burnt out inner city and gangs with switchblades. Another thing I noticed just now is how even though Tony and Tia are not practitioners of any sort of organized religion, Christianity (well, Roman Catholicism) is portrayed quite sympathetically in the book. The nun tells them about the letter, and Father O'Day is of enormous assistance, aiding their escape to the mountains and giving them a sympathetic name, and even following them down there. I love his thundering speech to the baddies at the end--"Don't ever confuse your master with mine!...Do you think the Lord on high is so frail that this little planet, with its greedy little people, is all that he [sic--should be capitalized] can do? Bah!...Get out of my sight! Go tell the rest of your kind there are marvels in Creation far beyond their narrow dreamings." More things on Heaven and earth, Horatio...Humility in Creation. Something fundamentalists should ponder.

One false step is that Tia can open locks "if it's right"--that strikes me as odd. A moral force is interceding there that would be inconsistent with true abilities--any other aptitude or ability (athleticism, strength, intelligence) is outside a moral structure--it's up to the person who has the ability to use it for right, as it were.

The movie's good but the book, as always, is so much better.
ceebeegee: (Default)
Last night I went to a showcase at the Trisha Brown Dance Studio, presented for the benefit of a guy that Susan and I met last Saturday at a party. Guy's name is Stephan--he's an acrobat/dancer, and he's going off to Las Vegas for a couple of years to develop and perform in a new Cirque du Soleil show. Anyway, I showed up at 8:30 and tried to squeeze into the room where the showcase was happening. Most of the acts were excellent--I was truly surprised at how good the show was. There was a bellydancer who was phenomenal, a couple of musclemen/acrobats who elicited gasps from the audience, a sword-swallower, a swing-dancer duo (who needed to smile more but they were still great). There was also an 11-year-old girl who had a Broadway resume--she was cute but I didn't like her singing style (I usually don't with most Broadway kids--it's such a nasal, harsh sound with forced vibrato).

There was a couple of acts that I thought didn't live up to the others. One was the final act--Stephan and his partner were supposed to be the final act but I guess this guy got there late or something. Anyway he just had to sing for Stephan. I didn't like his style either--he was one of those singers where it's all about him--bending over, eating the mike, closing the eyes, no communion with the audience. Ick. Just--no. Stop showboating, just sing the damn song. Then when his song was over, he had another song to sing. Oh man, whatever. It's bad enough you had to be the final act instead of Stephan but if you just have to sing, keep it to one song. Good Lord.

Anyway, the other act I didn't like was this guy who called himself "Father Tigger" (?), and strode out to this pumping song wearing some sort of modified priest's jacket and collar. He performed this--dance? performance piece? whatever--wherein he pulled out things like a rosary, a wooden cross necklace, etc., and fondled them, mouthed them, scourged himself and them threw them aside. It was nauseating, not because it made fun of the RC church, but because it was childish. The whole tone was so self-congratulatorily naughty--ooh, look at me! I'm fondling crosses and rosaries! I'm badd!! I'm daring!!

And it's not as though it were original or bold--Madonna's worked that shtick to death. I have no problem whatsoever with intelligent, cogent criticism or satire of the Church, be it RC or any other denomination. Sister Mary Ignatius Explains It All for You is one of my favorite plays, because it balances truly hilarious satire with honest outrage and bewilderment. But say something intelligent--say something other than Church Bad. The whole act was so artistically lazy--dress up like a priest, fondle yourself, get a few cheap laughs. Luckily I wasn't the only one put off by it--as I was leaving I heard the guy talking to someone who said he'd seen quite a few raised eyebrows in the audience, and the guy responded "That doesn't faze me a bit." I'm sure it doesn't because after all, you're a bold new voice! You're challenging long-held notions of the infallibility of the Church, you're shaking us out of our religious comfort zone, you're saying what's never been said before! Wow--the Church isn't always right! Who knew? Lead us, o Father Tigger!! Be our voice!

Vomit.

Profile

ceebeegee: (Default)
ceebeegee

May 2020

S M T W T F S
     12
3456 789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31      

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Feb. 11th, 2026 10:52 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios