|
|
Post by michaelw on May 27, 2017 18:22:51 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2017 18:58:25 GMT -5
I think a good many comparisons can be made between the U.S. and ancient Rome. The point about the civilizing/social vs. the military seems apt. But, heh, the thing that I kept thinking of while reading the article? Trump's penchant for yuuuge gilded things, and Nero's yuuuge Golden Palace. |
|
|
|
Post by maxinquaye on May 28, 2017 8:17:25 GMT -5
In the Euro-Maidan rebellion a few years back, the then Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovic was sent into exile. His palace was "liberated" and it was such an egregious expression of bad taste. When I saw Trump in his hotel, in front of the gold elevator, my first though was "Yeah, the US has got its own Yanukovic now."
|
|
|
|
Post by Don on Jun 3, 2017 7:17:41 GMT -5
Some people noted the rise of empire replacing the republic decades ago. Nice to see more mainstream outlets noticing.
|
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jun 3, 2017 8:47:25 GMT -5
Yeah, decades of expanding the authority of the executive branch and the authority of the bureaucracies under it, from the creation of Homeland Security to putting the EPA in charge of practically everything, along with massive government spending and bailouts and people are surprised that there's room for a Ceasar now?
|
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jun 12, 2017 9:40:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Jun 12, 2017 9:54:15 GMT -5
Very unfair, especially after Trump said the theater should be a safe space.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2017 10:35:13 GMT -5
frankly, it was much too big a compliment to Trump to compare him to Julius Ceasar. To note, in 2012, a production of Julius Caesar had a Barack Obama look-alike in the part. I don't recall the outrage then, but I suppose perhaps I missed it. The American Conservative, at least, thought it was valid, thoughtful political commentary. www.theamericanconservative.com/shakesblog/obamas-ides-of-march/I would also be willing to bet other productions of Julius Caesar have done the same with other leaders. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2017 11:54:09 GMT -5
I'll also note, for those not familiar with Shakespeare's play, that Julius Ceasar does not come off as a bad man, his assassins all end up dead, and the only one of them that comes off as particular noble is Brutus, because he at least thought he was acting for the good of Rome, even if he was manipulated into helping kill Caesar, who was his friend. The message most certainly was NOT that killing Caesar was a good thing.
I'll tell you the truth -- I'm fucking disgusted, and an looking into giving a donation to Shakespeare in the Park. The tickets, by the way, are free -- corporate funding is what enables this. People wait for hours to get them. It is always packed.
Unlike the Kathy Griffin photo (which IMO had little value as commentary or art, and was primarily about shock value), I do not find this offensive. Neither did conservatives when it was an Obama look-alike in the role.
Get thee over thyselves, conservatives, unless you want to go back in time and get outraged in 2012.
eta:
I see Bank of America has withdrawn support as well. I actually have a lot of money with them. I am contemplating withdrawing it.
I can do outrage, too...
eta:
apparently, many other leader look-alikes have been used in the Caesar role, including Reagan, Clinton, Lincoln, George W...
|
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jun 12, 2017 12:48:00 GMT -5
Thanks. I thought I remembered there being an Obama one, as well. Again, it's cheap and un-clever, imo. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2017 13:22:42 GMT -5
I have seen a trillion versions of various Shakespeare plays done up in modern dress, or to evoke current political situations. As I noted above, several presidents have been portrayed in the Caesar role. Were they all cheap and unclever?
Is it just the fact that Caesar is assassinated that troubles you? A central message of the play is that assassination is a bad thing. The play does not celebrate assassination by any means.
Was it still cheap and unclever in the version where Lincoln was Caesar? Is the American Conservatives take on the Obama version wrong in its take on the Obama version?
eta:
I haven't seen this version, so I cannot give a personal opinion on it. But I'm not willing to condemn it merely for doing what many other productions have done. It's all in the way it is done, IMO. I've seen plays brought into modern dress brilliantly and uncleverly. But the mere fact that they've done so -- I'd have to boycott an awful lot of classic plays, operas and ballets were I to condemn them for that.
|
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jun 12, 2017 13:50:26 GMT -5
I have seen a trillion versions of various Shakespeare plays done up in modern dress, or to evoke current political situations. As I noted above, several presidents have been portrayed in the Caesar role. Were they all cheap and unclever? Is it just the fact that Caesar is assassinated that troubles you? A central message of the play is that assassination is a bad thing. The play does not celebrate assassination by any means. Was it still cheap and unclever in the version where Lincoln was Caesar? Is the American Conservatives take on the Obama version wrong in its take on the Obama version? Yes, mostly, and yes, As to the article you cited, I didn't see the play, so I can't fairly argue with it's "take." I have no reason to doubt it, however. That said, you appear to be falling into a pretty deep well of fallacious reasoning. That one article isn't evidence of a lack of "outrage" from conservatives in general (point of fact, I'm not even upset, much less outraged; I saw the article, remembered this thread so stuck here, as it's hardly worthy--imo--of it's on thread as it's such a minor thing, though you seem rather pissed about Delta and BoA). Indeed, the guy who wrote the piece you cited has another one on this production: www.theamericanconservative.com/millman/why-not-shoot-a-president/Obviously, he thinks it's fine to show a current leader getting assassinated. But obviously, I disagree. Again, I think it's cheap. It's college skit commentary, but on the less clever side. *shrug* The very fact that they've taken this road multiple times in the past indicated--to me--a real lack of creativity. Regardless, I think having a living and sitting politician assassinated in a play is a cheap way to make it seem timely and/or controversial. And I don't much care about corporate sponsorships, one way or the other. They can be a real boon, no doubt (oftentimes for things I would consider worthwhile), but they don't need to exist, as a matter of course. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2017 14:46:04 GMT -5
My statement that I don't recall an uproar over the Obama production is based not just on that one review, but on my recollection generally. I was every bit as politically interested then as now, and while I wasn't on Twitter, I was on Facebook and participated on a couple of political sites. I don't recall boycotts and shrieking over the Obama production. Nor do I recall them after the Clinton, W, or Reagan versions.
It may not be an original idea. (are there any truly original ideas left? Would a straight-out version of Shakespeare be more original? Is originality the point?). But as far as I can see, the first ones to get hysterical about it are the Trumpsters.
Me, I'm disgusted that a corporation would retract funding for public theater over uproar from Trumpsters (even worse because Trump wants to yank funding from the NEA). If the Trumpsters are going to apply economic pressure for them to do so, my only answer is to apply it right back in the other direction.
The one time I have participated in a political boycott myself until now was over Hannity -- and only after he persisted in that vile Seth Rich story after Rich's family pleaded with him to stop and Fox had retracted the story. I could ignore his ranting until that point, but that was truly vile -- and cruel to Rich's family.
ETA:
What I really object to is the take I see all over Twitter "gaah! This is proof that everyone is after Trump. If anyone did it to Obama or Clinton, they'd be shrieking!" And no, actually -- people DID do it to Obama (and Clinton, Reagan, W, and Lincoln). Just as they hung and burned Obama in effigy. It's just that the people who give a damn about Kathy Griffin and this version of Shakespeare tend to have shrugged when it was Obama.
Me, I'm with the guy at the American Conservative that I'm fine with a version of Julius Caesar using a modern president -- whether it is shrug-worthy or interesting is going to depend on the production. I think the Kathy Griffin thing or the burning Obama in effigy is several levels down on the cheapness rung, and really doesn't make an interesting political or artistic statement at all, so I'm less inclined to defend it. (Though to note, I wouldn't make any of them illegal, nor would I boycott anything to prevent it. My boycott of the Hannity thing is a combination of my disgust at his trumpeting a story Fox had already concluded was false, and which moreover was defamatory of a private person and cruel to his grieving family. That's not a political statement on Hannity's part -- that's despicable and irresponsible fake journalism.)
ETA:
None of this is to say that there are not, e.g., some Clintonistas who get overly dramatic about "gaah, this never happened to anyone except Hillary"...when in fact it has. As Shakespeare remarked, "there be nothing new, but that which is
hath been before." (Even that statement wasn't new; Shakespeare stole it from the Bible, which probably borrowed it from something else.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2017 15:55:50 GMT -5
I also must note that I may have read more into Rob's diss of the Shakespeare production than I otherwise might have done -- I had just come from reading all about how Trump supporters were trying to shut down Shakespeare in the Park, and I took that personally, as I am a big fan. I am particularly fond of SitP since it is one of the desirable arts things in NYC that people can get for free. That won't be the case anymore if corporate sponsors run away. And I'd hate to see them run away from doing anything interesting with the plays. Part of the fun of seeing a Shakespeare production is to see what new twist they can make of an old play, using exactly the same language, and just shaking up the sets and costumes.
Geek that I am, I've seen so many takes of Julius Caesar, and I'm so familiar with the basic anti-assassination message of the play, it didn't occur to me to see this production as having a "let's kill Trump" message. I am guessing that most of the Trump supporters getting outraged don't know a damn thing about the play or the history of it over the last few hundred years. That seems fairly clear from the vast number of prayer-hand-emoji tweets braying about how "imagine if they did a version with Obama in it!"
So, Rob, if (as I gather is the case) you just dislike versions of Shakespeare that put a person who looks like a modern political figure in the role of Caesar, you are consistent. I will merely shrug and disagree.
|
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jun 12, 2017 16:47:21 GMT -5
Well, I think having a current political figure--particularly an elected head of state--get assassinated as the centerpiece of a play, movie, or what have you is, again, cheap. It's not clever, in the least, whether the piece is a retooling of something like Shakespeare or is its own thing.
I don't see the real point, apart from getting people to go "aha, they killed Kenny!" Really, I think a far more clever take here would be making the assassination metaphorical, i.e. a plot that got him kicked out of office. Comey could be Cassius...
As to the issue of outrage, you'd do well to cite examples, beyond a few tweets. The article I linked to said this:
But it didn't give any evidence of this outrage, either.
It's lazy writing, imo. Maybe there are a ton of conservative claiming to be outraged. Still, I think that would still require a "some supporters" in the piece and "some conservatives" from you.
|
|
