Wednesday, January 29, 2014

ELEGY TO A BUTTERFLY




In honor of my mother and her love for the critically endangered Monarch butterfly.



Earth mother. She had been born to nurture. Actually my mother was born in Manhattan: her drunken father had been kicked out when Mom was three, and her step-father departed on his own terms when my mother was seven. To fill the vacancy, my hapless grandmother encouraged her daughter and son to lose themselves in all the pleasures and perks of city-life that money could buy, that is until the Great Depression. 

One day, my grandmother asked her children to pack their bags for a trip to the countryside, and without warning, she left the boy and girl with family friends who had agreed to raise the children. My grandmother then returned to New York. Mother’s world had been shaken and stirred. In a young girl’s eyes she and her younger brother had been dropped on a far away island; they had become castaways, though they lived only two hours from the city.

Raised for much of her life by a woman—sadly, the husband died not long after the adoption—who had the right, legally, to call herself, “mother” but in fact acted like a distant relative, the abandoned young girl grew into a mature woman. Mother had learned to survive. Years of scenes from Stella Dallas brought more complications when my grandmother came and went for temporary visits. And yet Mother forgave her mother and pushed onward to a better future.

Meanwhile, my mother became a teacher at a nearby school and counted the days. When she met my father—a tall, handsome, ambitious man who also carried similar emotional baggage—he swept her away from the desert, like a prince on a magical carpet. My mother had found what she had wished for from the age of seven: love and family.

A year later the expectant mother began another journey where she discovered her calling: gardening. She opened her eyes and fell in love with nature. Flowers, trees, birds, the sky, the mountains and Hudson River, nothing escaped her attention. Eventually, she shared that gift, her devotion to the environment to her children, though she never excluded them from what New York City had to offer. Over the years, it wasn’t yin or yang. Each world had its own treasures.

And yet, when I remember my mother, I don’t see her as many did and still do, sitting in a favorite Lexington Avenue neighborhood restaurant or at an exhibit at MOMA (Museum of Modern Art, New York) I see her, 5’2, hour-glass figure bent over a garden plot:  hands, covered with brown soil; her ever-unwieldy dark, wispy hair stuck to her forehead. Dressed in baggy jeans and an old Brook Brothers’ white button down shirt, sleeves rolled up; her hands grasp an old, rusty wheelbarrow.

Yes, she had joined the local and regional garden clubs, had her term as President, won blue ribbons in flower shows, but the pleasure she had tending her small, then later larger garden, pulling weeds, planting flowers; trimming rose bushes; griping about predators such as deer, rabbits, and those accursed woodchucks, did not wane.

Naturally, she tried to get her daughter involved with some early success. However, I loved animals. The very pests that my mother lambasted I adored. Anything that moved. At least I shared her delight in butterflies. Oh, how Mom would beam whenever she’d see one. When I was in elementary school, she helped me with my science project, watching the remarkable transformation of  a caterpillar to a Spicebush Swallow-tail butterfly I had called “Jane,” though we didn’t know anything about butterfly breeding habits and had no idea about its sex. Funny, how my mother never forgot Jane and would share the story again and again over the years.

With all that nostalgia, Mom especially adored Monarch butterflies. She would follow their journey in the Science section of The New York Times or nature specials; she’d sigh after she had read reports about the Monarch’s declining population. And, Mom would love to tell the tale about a garden club field trip where she had encountered a tree filled with migrating Monarchs. I’d smile with her every time she’d tell the story.

Time would pull me away from my mother’s private sanctuary. I had become an adult and wanted to seek adventure elsewhere, sometimes thousands of miles away. We still had common interests, yet gardening was Mother’s pastime, and wouldn’t be mine, though she never revealed any disappointment. She did give me a multi-sensory appreciation of Mother Earth, which I have carried with me all my life. From wildflowers to rose bushes; from ladybugs to spring peepers; from the seductive aroma of honeysuckle to the cry of a hawk flying overhead. Every flora and fauna moment we shared produced a passion, a fierceness for the land. And the sea.

Second only to her beloved garden, my mother cherished being on the water or near the water. Not a regular swimmer, tinnitus and other pesky physical challenges kept her from going into the ocean often. Instead, walking the beach, while visiting friends on Cape Cod, infused her with energy and radiance. Long before Anne Morrow Lindbergh had written her homage to the sea, my mother had waxed poetic— in discussions and in writing—about the surging ocean, precious seashells, and dancing sandpipers.

In nature, Mom became the child she hadn’t been allowed to be for so long. She stayed that way for almost sixty years. And then my father passed away. Three years and one week later, Mom followed. Only days after I had visited her for Mother’s Day. She was 94. My mother’s unhappiness at becoming caged, though she emphatically insisted (and the doctors had agreed) it was what she had wanted and needed, turned to resentment. Being deprived of  her passion had sapped her life energy. She tried for as long as she could to find the light in small things, until her diminishing eyesight took that away, too. Mother had become a stoic. In her mind, she had become lifeless, way before her body finally surrendered. When my mother left this earth, she had believed she’d return to it: “. . .ashes to ashes, dust to dust,” though in her case, it would be dust to sand.

How could I know how the day would unfold? As I assembled my closest friends to honor my mother, I didn’t hesitate about where we’d go. No garden to return to, still a place just as precious. When alive, the ocean carried her spirit away to a calm and restful place. It was only fitting we’d return her to the sea. On a clear, crisp September morning, we drove down toward “The Point”. Mother’s favorite walking destination at Nauset.  All shared our thoughts and memories: “Oh, how I loved your mother’s laugh.” “The flowers she did for our wedding,” or, “We’ll never forget her.” When it came to me, I had carefully planned what I believed she would have wanted me to do and what I wanted to say.

One of Mom’s favorite films had been a classic black and white romance, I Know Where I’m Going, with Wendy Hiller. No surprise that Mom had loved Scotland and taken a pilgrimage, with my father, to the Hebrides: to see Tobermory and the phone booth—still there at the time— next to the waterfall. (Fortunately, she didn’t learn that many of the movies scenes were shot on a London set).
So, in honor of Mom, I handed out the words and music to the traditional Scottish song the movie title had been taken from, and most of the assembled poignantly sang all three verses. After I had spread Mother’s ashes, we each threw sprigs of heather into the water. I stood in the shallows a few minutes, alone. Then, I threw Mom a kiss goodbye.

The nipping cold reminded us it was time to go. Getting into the truck, pictures of Mom smiling as she walked the beach jumped in my head. How she would have loved this morning. A mostly blue sky; pure sand under her bare feet; the briny smell of the ocean; her warm laughter, and the nurturing sun in her face.

Before we could drive away, there was a loud knock on the driver’s door. My friend lowered the window. From nowhere—there wasn’t anyone else around this time of the morning and no house within easy walking distance—a middle-aged woman appeared holding something in her hands. She looked very concerned. “Excuse me, but can you help me?” she said. “I found this butterfly being tossed around on the beach. I know it should be inland. Could you take it with you and release it? I don’t have my car nearby.”

All of us agreed. Another friend in the back seat said she would hold the wind-battered insect.
As we pulled away, I turned around and asked her, “What kind of butterfly is it?”

“A Monarch, Wendy. Why?”


Sunday, January 26, 2014

MY HOMAGE TO STEPHEN SONDHEIM: ISN’T HE BLISS?




 
A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte by George Seurat

Last night, I watched “Six by Sondheim,” a re-run of the HBO documentary. And though I stumbled through the zigzagging narrative and interviews, the director, who happened to be Stephen Sondheim’s former lyricist James Lapine,  I discovered within Sondheim the brazen heart of a lion and the vulnerable heart of a lion’s prey. In his lifetime, Sondheim has had to face waves of critics, detractors and deconstructionists who, armed with poisoned pens and closed ears, have judged his works before Sondheim’s shows opened. They wanted or want flashy flourishes; instead these critics have been presented deceptively simple brilliance.

           

Considering Sondheim’s sad upbringing—until he found a mentor in Oscar Hammerstein—he had plenty of reason to be cynical, to hate. He chose to do neither. Lapine’s documentary reminds viewers that Sondheim grew up with a mother who didn’t want him or love him—which he learned toward the end of his life by her own written hand. Like many, he was a casualty of divorce and the acrimony between his parents that accompanied the schism. Still, with Oscar Hammerstein’s encouragement and the kindness of others, Sondheim didn’t lose heart. In fact, in one of many interviews with Sondheim, he cried with happiness about his fortune, not his misfortune. Any hint of cynicism would stem from his long time aggravation with small-minded producers and critics. The viewer could see the mental exhaustion Sondheim experienced fighting these battles to be respected and recognized. But to quote from Sondheim’s Follies (1971), and Lapine’s documentary,  “I’m Still Here” symbolizes the composer’s perseverance.

           

Out there in cyberspace I can hear the grunts and groans. Stephen Sondheim, not cynical? There are those who believe Sondheim isn’t entertaining because his words and music are laced with acerbity. That Sondheim is a pessimist is simply not true. Sondheim has been realistic about who he is, what he can do and what he knew he could be. His tenaciousness to break the amassing musical log jam, choking from staleness before Sondheim became known, brought the maestro some critical and financial success. After all, he wrote A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum (1962), campy, I agree, yet it provided the underpinnings for future comedic musicals, including Mel Blanc’s The Producers. There’s a twinkle in Sondheim’s eyes when he speaks about his work. Stuffy would be the last word I’d use to describe him (an elitist could never have written the lyrics for West Side Story, 1957).



The entrenched belief that Sondheim writes inaccessible music and lyrics is an assumption without evidence. On the contrary, a segment of the HBO documentary addressed how audiences often “tune out” when listening to songs that are predictable both in lyrics and melody. 
           
I wrote a week ago a blog about how I loathed the question, “What Is My Favorite. . .” anything.  To be contradictory, for this blog, I must write that my favorite Sondheim musical is: Sunday in the Park with George, for which composer/lyricist received the Pulitzer Prize. As I watched the documentary about the artist, I smiled, very pleased that Sondheim also favored that musical. It’s his most personal work, he admits.

           

Listening and watching Sunday in the Park with George (1985) is a journey. The goal, Stephen Sondheim asserts is for audiences to leave the theatre having been stimulated, not necessarily by “hummable” tunes. The music can be orgasmic. French women have said about sexuality that the journey supersedes the outcome. Once lovers stop striving for fireworks, the intimacy in exploring one another’s desires will naturally lead to climatic moments. A metaphor for the phrasing of a Sondheim song. Listen to his music, his lyrics. They are breathtaking, beautiful, haunting and memorable. “Move On, ” from Sunday in the Park with George comprises words which elicit practical advice and profound philosophy, depending on what lifetime experience you bring to it: “Don’t worry about where you’re going, move on.”  This song is relatable: who doesn’t worry about the future?  Creating art does involve life’s disparate paths.



Personally I absorb Sondheim songs. With each word, each phrase I am led on a subtle, multi-layered trip that culminates in deep revelation. Others may hear songs from Sunday in the Park with George without analyzing, just experiencing the beauty and touching quality that the songs elicit. After all, like any art form, music is subjective. However, I assert that Sondheim can reach those who never took Music 101 (I didn’t either. My exposure to music has been experiential, with a few years of unproductive piano lessons and singing in choruses.)  

             

The song, “Sunday,” ( also from Sunday in the Park With George) exemplifies my opinion. In James Lapine’s documentary, Sondheim called this piece a “triumphant march.” To use a less operatic description, “Sunday” could be called a celebratory hymn honoring the creative process. In “Sunday” Stephen Sondheim seemingly tricks it’s listener into believing that the song would end with a bombastic crescendo, as with many show tunes (The Music Man and Hello Dolly, e.g.) and on radio (Barry Manilow or Celine Dion, e.g.). No, Sondheim’s musical technique takes a different trek. “Sunday”, in fact, rises from a whisper to a stirring fortissimo, grabbing your heart strings as your blood surges, only to decrescendo into a minor chord descending a staircase leading to a final monologue by Seurat’s descendant as he reads Dot’s journal: “White. A blank page or canvas. His favorite. . .So many possibilities.” Exploring possibilities, here I’d say Sondheim is providing us with his mantra. As he travels through his professional life his works evolve and change. His music and lyrics aren’t cast in stone.

           

And to those who find Sondheim’s stories depressing, then I’d argue see another show or the same one again (Even Sweeney Todd has a hopeful finale). With Sunday in the Park with George, Sondheim clearly wants the listener to see the future as a place for promise. What an uplifting message to leave with your audience, “. . .So many possibilities,” although intrinsically the story is immersed in realism.

           

The composer/lyricist, Stephen Sondheim, cannot separate himself from his art, as was true for the painter, George Seurat. Exceptional artists are often insular, sometimes selfishly so—incapable of seeing their private lives dissolving around them. However, isn’t this true for many career-driven aspirants? Indeed, in ambition-driven professions—for profit or not-for-profit, such as real estate development or running an off-Broadway theater—those who succeed often sacrifice their family life for their own vision or being the top of their profession. Call it selfishness, yet I believe many of our world’s greatest discoveries, inventions, and artistic masterpieces required or have called for complete focus. Returning to Sunday in the Park with George to illustrate, Seurat’s model, muse and mistress, Dot, sees George Seurat’s unflinching immersion and understands the artist could never love her enough to sacrifice his art. She walks away, isn’t pushed out. Dot expresses her revelation in the song, “We Do Not Belong Together.” Poignant but correct.



Sondheim sacrificed having children in his life, a regret, but an implied choice he would have made again. Stephen Sondheim knows people better than they do themselves. He sees beyond romantic syrup and portrays his characters as if we were to observe them in real life. At the end of earlier musicals by other composers, theater-goers often “whistled a happy tune” as they left. Like cotton candy, audience members would often hum a tasty, sweet song but once home, the pink, sticky fluffy candy would dissolve, leaving a faint reminder. Sondheim includes a more complex aftertaste. He includes the sour along with the sweet.

           

When pedestrians in New York, in the documentary, were asked, “What’s your favorite Sondheim song?” Those who recognized his name would answer “Send in the Clowns,” with some stating that they didn’t understand the song’s meaning. Having listened to “Send in the Clowns,” several versions, the  intoxicating words are filled with meaning and should be interpreted in the context of his musical, A Little Night Music (1973). Then again, the song can stand alone if the listener understands: timing is a central component of human life. Sometimes life’s events run parallel, others intersect, while others go off in different directions.

           

For me, Sondheim is the Mozart of musical theatre (A Little Night Music is the translation of Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, for those who didn’t see the connection). Mozart loved the working class of Austria for they saw Mozart as a man of his time and of the people. Sondheim writes for all of us. His stories, lyrics, and music, however, don’t require a classical background, a college degree or a music upbringing, only an open heart, open ears and an ability to go beyond the obvious, to genuinely listen.        

My hope for the future is that my blog followers and others who haven’t explored the rapturous world of Stephen Sondheim’s music will take the chance. Go to YouTube and search his name. Hear the music as sung by several of our greatest vocalists, musical interpreters. Spread the word if you enjoy his compositions. And if this essay doesn’t convince you, I suspect Stephen Sondheim might offer, as a response to your choice, the last line from his hit Send in the Clowns, “Well, maybe. . .next year.”

Wednesday, January 22, 2014

ESCAPE TO THE MOVIES





How many people, who have the means, can you name who never watch movies? I’m not referring to those whose lives are so harried that they don’t have the time. No, there are some who consciously decide not to go to the movies (or see them on-line/TV). Naturally, every person has a right to avoid  films. In contrast, a large majority couldn’t imagine not going to the movies, budget aside. Being eclectic, I try to be open to many genres, from action/adventure, such as The Avengers (2012) or Rush (2013), any science fiction, or well-written romantic comedies and/or indies, e.g. Midnight in Paris (2011). Yet, there exists a faction that extols their choice to not watch movies. And a larger group which only view films that shun the spotlight for the darker corners of daily life. Whether on college campuses or at coffee houses, visitors will inevitably hear conversations supporting their lofty choices: either refrain from movies all together or choose indies or art house films, solely, above populist entertainment. That's right "above." Arguably, the intellects' reasoning stems from the stance that we all should be remove our “rose-colored glasses” and face the realities of life. What is truly happening vs. what we wish were happening.

Well, I will argue, why not escape? As the world continues to be bombarded by environmental catastrophes, terrorist bombings, school shootings and the like, it’s no wonder people would rather briefly ignore these often daily occurrences shown in the news through escapist entertainment, than mull over our doomed planet.

Whether you are a Woody Allen fan or not, the famous, sometimes infamous, independent director knew his audience. One of his most popular box office successes was released more than thirty years ago, Annie Hall (1977). In the movie, Annie begins to dissolve her relationship with Alvy Singer by telling him, as they are standing in line to watch it again, Alvy has seen The Sorrow and the Pity (1969) enough times. Not to disparage the gravitas of the movie, The Sorrow and the Pity, or its message, but Annie has a point, at least by representing someone who needs balance in her life and relief from the world's despair. 

Broadening the movie-goer spectrum across the Pacific, what do film fans in other countries watch? And why? More often than not, box office takes, in Asia e.g., include American films, sans explicit sex, movies which are action-based, Transformers (2007), or highly romantic movies, Sleepless in Seattle (1993). Supporting the counterargument purported by cynics that the multitude don’t want to be seriously enlightened, just entertained. Hogwash, I say.

Years ago, I watched a story on network news about a traveling movie group that would go to the outskirts of India, from village to village, to show Bollywood films to impoverished residents for minimal prices. The fans worked long hours for very little money; still, they saved a portion of their wages to watch a movie on the make shift screen once a month. For those unfamiliar with a traditional Bollywood production, often the stories involve couples who encounter frequent obstacles, but the endings are happy, with grand production numbers to celebrate the union of the twosome: Devdas (2002, with Aishwarya Rai) is one example. These films rarely show the lovers kissing and are underscored by cultural values. Bollywood, however, has been lampooned and chastised by some critics and serious-minded film watchers because of its formulaic plots and inevitable rosy conclusion. And yet, villagers in India when asked why they would spend their hard-earned money on a Bollywood movie, would respond, I paraphrase: Because the world is a hard place and it’s nice to disappear into a dream, a place they could never imagine. (If you want to watch a film which includes modern social issues once considered taboo and a nod to Bollywood, see Monsoon Wedding, 2001.)

India was recently included in a report on worldwide poverty. The study noted, “85 people own half the world’s wealth.” In the States, with our disappearing middle class and almost insurmountable challenges that face us, it’s no wonder that going to a movie—sadly a luxury in many American cities and elsewhere due to high prices—or renting/streaming a film is the centerpiece entertainment, outside of television, in our country.

Yes, we do live in a capitalist society where studios produce blockbusters like The Avengers, while smaller films get pushed aside for potential, box office hits. This practice, I firmly believe, should not happen—thank goodness for film festivals. But by assigning “value” to independent movies and to the dismiss the bigger movies, some critics, intellectuals and others are subjectifying. These dissenters need to open their windows and look out at the sea of lost souls, two-job single mothers, or street dwelling teenagers whose lives are endangered everyday to understand why they go to the movies and why they need alternatives to art house films. These forgotten ones would rather escape their repressive lives and find an outlet for their imagination that for two hours exorcises the anger in their heads, a much healthier pastime than doing drugs for instance—I’ll elide “violence in film” for this discussion; others have had their say on that subject.

So, to the cynics whose wrath I'm incurring as you read this blog, I say go ahead and continue to support non-mainstream filmmakers who portray realism and a picture of our world through their lens. We do need diversity in film and to awaken some sleepy middle-class and upper-class minds to what’s going on out there. To the other minority who refuse to watch a movie, I ask that you at least open your mind to why Hollywood “pictures” focus on mainstream entertainment, and why your choice is not better but a right, as an American.

Finally, to the naysayers who protest escapism via watching box office bonanzas, claiming these movies as unproductive, unenlightened, capitalistic, unrealistic and possibility destructive, I would suggest that they should use their imagination to picture life among the billions of poor, working class, or Slumdog Millionaire (2008) children before passing judgment on the masses’ movie choices.


Monday, January 20, 2014

MAN OF FIRE (Poem - Originally posted on PoetreeCreations.org)

Correction made. Therefore, I've decided to post the corrected version below. Happy reading!



MAN OF FIRE

You entered the inferno with a shield,
A tradition of sacrifice; a heritage without yield.
And with every step you cautiously searched,
Giving mind to dangers when rafters lurched.

From cobalt blue to pale yellow, flames singed your bristled hair,
And poured sweaty showers on your salty, scarred skin;
A fog without air engulfed your head, though you did not care;
For a powerful magnet, a weakened victim, pulled you in.

A force too strong to run for flight,
Your courage lit the way when day for night;
Then with your exit from that fiery stage,
Your arms held a bundle, another life, another page.

The story continued with many deeds: resuscitating a woman who hardly breathed;
Climbing heights to carry a man on your shoulder you heaved,
Or grabbing a housecat nestled in a corner that put up a fight;
You proudly wore that warrior’s uniform, grey with yellow stripes.

After thirty years, your daily battles finished;
Some memories have gone, others remain undiminished,
You have continued to strive to become a better man,
But to my heart you are one among many, the best in the land.

Dedicated to retired firefighters everywhere.