CLOSE THE CURTAIN ON THEATER TICKET PRICES!

A love of the theatre is so general,

the itch for acting so strong among young people.

Jane Austen, Mansfield Park

I wrote the blog “Why the One Percent Must Read (or Re-read) Austen’s Mansfield Park” (April 24, 2014,  www.shadowwaterwriter.blogspot.com ) responding to the blinder-wearing elite who have not learned that the class system continues to wield its ugly head. To become an actor during Austen’s day meant little income, grudging recognition and ostracism outside of the theater by society. Yet, as seen in the above quote, Jane Austen understood the pressing need for all to have access to the theatre as performers or audiences.

As a child, I loved everything about theatre and often play-acted with friends, saw summer stock, regional and Broadway performances and performed in school-plays. Later, I interned and worked behind-the-scenes at various theaters including New York’s Public Theater, The Vivian Beaumont, Hudson Valley Shakespeare Festival and the Cape Playhouse in Dennis, MA. I share Austen’s passion for the stage.

After hearing about the outrageous ticket prices, a genuine example of exploitive capitalism, for Lin-Manuel Miranda’s final performance in “Hamilton” (as much as @ $6,000 with the lowest being @$1,700) I yelled at Charlie Rose’s devil-may-care attitude when he reported his experience on CBS This Morning. He blithely accepted the inevitable high prices and reveled in his good fortune, albeit with modesty. Ironic, the word “fortune,” with its denotations, e.g. good luck or large amounts of money, has become commonplace in our vernacular.

My anger regarding Broadway prices simmered for a week until I recalled Jane Austen’s life. She observed going to the theatre in Bath and occasionally London, as a privilege Austen humbly appreciated, knowing how few could afford such a treat. Indeed, she often went as a guest, for richer friends understood Austen’s hardship. (For more on Jane Austen’s life, read Claire Tomilan’s superlative biography, Jane Austen, A Life, 1999, Vintage)

Though there have been periods since where the American populous, at least, have been able to afford to attend Broadway or even regional productions, history has since come full circle. Present day, New York’s average ticket price for orchestra seats, musicals, is $150. Tickets which are sold from the TKTS’ booth (via the Theater Development Fund) at discounted rates start @$49, rear mezzanine seats, for popular musicals to $109 for the best seats.

Regionally and locally, ticket prices have also increased: the non-profit theater down the street from me charges $25 for most productions performed by non-professionals. Professional/semi-professional theaters here charge as much as $75 for the best seats. Disheartening for those on Cape Cod who are either on a fixed income or disability or for the average worker who can barely support their families’ basic needs. Theaters, here, have depended more on second homeowners or tourists for box office revenue. Some have been forced to stay open year-round to grab theater-goers who could become loyal subscribers and donors. As history suggests in the U.S. and England, any available government subsidies often award large or city-based non-profit institutions, leaving regional arts organizations in a lurch.

True, production costs have markedly increased in the for-profit and not-for-profit theaters since the seventies and eighties. Then, discounted tickets meant “significantly reduced.” Today, in the commercial theatre where ticket brokers grab blocks of seats via computer algorithms, much like the stock market scenario portrayed in the film, The Big Short (2015), only the upper-middle class or rich will be able to afford to attend the theatre regularly. And middle class attendees will be forced to go once a year, at best.

During the twenties, my mother’s childhood, theater-lovers from various strata could afford the theater, but little else. The situation worsened with the onset of the Great Depression. After World War II however, the general populous had more access, particularly with radio and later television where people could listen to or watch live performances.

Yes, economies are cyclical but in our modern age generations who could once afford to attend the theater can no longer do so. Moreover, with competition from movies, in-home entertainment, portable technology, potential theater-goers will be lost, and deprived of live drama or musicals; deprived of becoming captured by theater magic as Jane Austen did.

“No man dies of love but on the stage.” Fanny tells Mr. Crawford she has realized his love isn’t real; he is only pretending as he acts in a fateful play on a makeshift stage. Fascinating that Austen uses the scene to illuminate the climax of the story. Mr. Crawford is unmasked and Fanny sees the truth. Jane Austen knew first-hand how theater could serve as a form of escape from the drudgeries of everyday life. All should have that opportunity.

THE FREEDOM TO DREAM

What happens to a dream deferred? 

Does is dry up like a raisin in the sun? 

Or does it explode?

                               --Langston Hughes

Can we all agree that those who have the freedom to dream often get discouraged? Millions who share the American Dream, a smaller number who wish to get a job which pays a sustainable wage, or fewer who hope to find a better life when they return from fighting overseas have become discouraged. The disappointment--when these people can't make enough money to buy a car, home or better life can gnaw at their souls, induce melancholy.

If we were to include those who because of their skin color can't live life without dread that they will be overlooked, beaten or killed when they step out their door, the disillusionment would rise exponentially. 

In contrast, take your average law enforcer who from the late seventies until 9/11, in particular, left their home expecting to return--though the possibility of death hung over them like Damocles's Sword. Some adhered to honor and duty while some did not. Inured officers and ill-trained, first-year recruits became more and more trigger happy. Overlooked for too long in this country, police brutality wielded its ugly head. 

Then after 9/11, the responsibility of protecting the public increased significantly. Terror threats; justifiable vocal backlash against those who abused their power; every move thrust in the public eye via the Internet, cell phones, dashboard cameras, etc. added to an already overstretched police force and each cops daily stress. They at least have the right to dream of a better life for their families, but has that dream died, too? 

The tragedies we've seen in Orlando, the killings of black men in Baton Rouge and Minneapolis, and this week's murder of five police officers in Dallas must be on the minds of those who want to serve in law enforcement. Will the pressure to do what they must to protect and do what is right to serve dissuade would-be-rookies from entering the field? 

Men and women representing the diversity of the community should continue to be recruited to protect the public. However, with the understanding that those who serve, no matter their income-level, race or creed, need to have a semblance of humanity to perform their duties. Also, these recruits need mental health support and community involvement to help ease the ever-increasing pressures put on the police. More so, stopping easy access to assault weapons would help protect law officers.

Let's think before we act, put ourselves in others' shoes, unite to end gun violence in communities and from law enforcers. For in the end, we all have the right to dream. 

All we are saying...is give peace a chance.

                                          --John Lennon

INDEPENDENCE DAY: REASON TO CELEBRATE

The Fourth of July--fireworks, cookouts, parades, pageants--lest we forget that the holiday celebrates this country's declaration of independence from British colonialism.

Americans should be rejoicing after Brexit. For I believe we have been given a gift by those who voted for the U.K. (United Kingdom) to leave the E.U. (European Union). American diplomats have an opportunity to strengthen the U.S. bonds with the E.U. while diplomatically retreating from a weakened foreign policy relationship with England.

"England" because Scotland's majority, those pragmatic realists for whom I have an even greater respect, and Northern Ireland voted to remain in the E.U. And since the U.K. comprises England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, I must mention the Welsh did vote for separation (for more on a Welsh dissenter's point-of-view, read Richard Wyn Jones' article in The Guardian ).

I will address American Colonialism in a future article; however, we have patterned our foreign policy in part on the British model. When policy critics decry the United States' skewed support in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, do critics remember that the British in partnership with its allies led the partition of Palestine and the establishment of Israel? Or that after World War I, the British military and leadership marked the boundaries between Middle Eastern countries, once part of the Ottoman Empire or German possessions then "awarded" to French and British during the Treaty of Versailles (1916)? And where were American diplomats in all this? Woodrow Wilson spearheaded the League of Nations with full cooperation among Western nations which supported the Treaty (including promises made and quickly broken; the United Nations has not been much better).

Rest assured I'm not advocating a divorce from our staunch ally rather a separation from England's nationalistic resurgence. Yes, a large populous in the United Kingdom suffer the same economic woes as do the working and middle classes here. The English workers' anger towards elitism justifies dissension but not a reversion to the past. Millions of English-persons now regret the decision, at least in terms of economic consequences, and have called for a second referendum to repeal the secession vote. Clearer minds and common sense have begun to prevail. However, I do wonder how many in England, Wales and the United States see that blind nationalism has devastating consequences in foreign policy as well?

Groups of nationalists in France and Germany have begun sowing the weeds of separatism, especially with the influx of refugees--a term which should be used more by the press, in case they don't remember it means: "a person who flees to a foreign country or power to escape danger or persecution." (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). Symbolic weed-killers, i.e. supporting isolationism and prejudice; bombings, and worse sending in ground troops (who, to continue the analogy, used napalm during Vietnam to flush out or eliminate alleged Viet Cong "terrorists")  will not eradicate the current pestilence of terrorism. Only a united front among our allies who accept the inevitable globalization and global community and the United States to improve the economic welfare of all impoverished people will facilitate stabilization. To feed prosperity, the ground must be fertile, nourished by its growers, not destroyed by its predators.

Certainly a lesson Trump supporters, war-mongers--particularly avengers who wish to retaliate against all Muslims by bombing their homelands, indiscriminately, and establishing Western-backed leaders in countries such as Syria--haven't learned. Sound familiar? If the United States wants to be independent from British rule, then our citizens must think globally. Our economic survival, national security depend on being part of the solution and separate from our colonial past.

Happy Independence Day, Americans!

THE MAN WHO KNEW INFINITY & FERMAT'S LAST THEOREM

Srinivasa Ramanujan was elected Fellow of the Royal Society [Cambridge] at the age of just thirty-one. Despite having received very little formal education in his home village of Kumbakonam in South India, Ramanujan was able to create theorems and solutions that had evaded mathematicians in the West. (Simon Singh, Fermat's Enigma, 1997)

How is it that S. Ramanujan could accomplish such a feat? If you see the character-driven film, The Man Who Knew Infinity (2016), with the superb Dev Patel (Srinivasa Ramanujan), Jeremy Irons (G. H. Hardy), Toby Jones (J.E. Littlewood) and Jeremy Northam (Bertrand Russell), you will see the hero, Ramanujan, endures hardship and racism in 1915 England, resulting in a bright star imploding before your eyes.

Since the similarly ground-breaking Andrew Wiles is the focus of Simon Singh's book, the author mentions Ramanujan briefly. But Singh does reveal a truism lost on many in the Western world but a central theme in the film:

"Although this theorem will be forever associated with Pythogoras,...

a² + b² = c² 

...it was actually used by the Chinese and the Babylonians one thousand years before." (Singh, p. 19)

Singh adds that though these civilizations used the theorem they didn't prove the equation applies to all "right-angled triangles." (Singh, p. 20) He insists mathematicians need unwavering proof to demonstrate if theorems are correct.

Fermat's Last Theorem took Pythagoras' equation above one step farther by substituting n for 2, where no integers for n>2 can be used. However, no one had found "proof," that larger integers couldn't be used (and positive integers could not be substituted for a, b, and c). (Singh, p. 31) Centuries later, Oxford's Andrew Wiles would prove this theorem (published, 1995) while a professor at Princeton University. (Nature.com, 3/15/16)

The movie, The Man Who Knew Infinity, implies most mathematicians are atheists. Ramanujan (Dev Patel) is not. In fact when asked by G. H. Hardy (Jeremy Irons) about the genesis of his formulas, Ramanujan says: "An equation means nothing to me unless it expresses a thought of God." Being a staunch cynic and atheist himself, Hardy cannot be swayed that any god has inspired his under-educated protégé. Hardy's colleague, J. E. Littleton (Toby Jones), impels Hardy to think differently about Ramanujan's faith and lack of education, "Don't be intimidated. Great knowledge comes from the humblest of origins."  (The Man Who Knew Infinity)

Further, Ramanujan, in the film, avers that he can see math all around him: in the earth, the sky, the water, even the stars. Later we learn his work has been used toward discovering black holes. Therefore, if we were to accept, as mathematicians and scientists have shown, that math is all around us and formulas predict what we cannot see, then how can we deny the existence of a life force? Physicists Albert Einstein and Michio Kaku, more recently, asserted their own suppositions regarding the existence of a spiritual deity.

Take the discovery of gravitational waves, stemming from Einstein's prediction in his Theory of Relativity (nytimes.com, 2/12/2016). According to M.I.T. Professor of Physics, Rainer Weiss, during his lecture on gravitational astronomy at the Maritime Museum, Cape Cod, (Hyannis, MA, 6/15/2016), physicists and other scientists at LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory) first detected gravitational waves between two colliding black holes as a "chirping" sound wave.

Note the term "black holes," and refer back to Ramanujan's mathematical contributions with G. H. Hardy from 1915 to 1918. Also note Einstein developed his Theory of Relativity including gravitational waves, between 1907 and 1915. Neither Einstein nor Ramanujan could individually prove the entirety of their theories when alive. However, they posited, had the courage to assert their revelations despite the lack of proof.

S. Ramanujan's theorems also provided the basis for the movie title, The Man Who Knew Infinity (based on the book by Robert Kanigel) showing how his models based on infinity shook the mathematical world. Later in the 20th century, his work called "The Ramanujan Conjecture" when combined with Hans Petersson's metric, helped Andrew Wiles prove Fermat's Last Theorem.

Thus if a man gifted with intuition, zealously believed in his gods, Einstein believed in a "pantheistic" God, and Kaku said he "believes in a God that created the universe," (quora.com, 4/5/2015), as a self-professed agnostic, how could I debate the non-existence of an intelligent being? Faith can be practiced in many forms, but how beautiful is this convergence, how breath-taking these brilliant men's convictions. Thank you, Srinivasa Ramanujan, for believing in the impossible.

To end, I'd like to share a poem published on http://www.capewomenonline.net/beatus-lacrimis-by-wendy-shreve/ The poem refers to the monumental hypothesis where a pi formula connects quantum mechanics (e.g. atoms, particles) and quantum physics (Einstein's theories). Interesting how Ramanujan developed revolutionary pi formulas still used today.

IDRIS ELBA, WHY HE SHOULD BE NEXT JAMES BOND

Aha! Some out there in the blog-o-sphere have already been dissuaded by this point: why should an Anglo-African actor play the iconic James Bond? I won't speculate your reasons; suffice it to say forget what Idris Elba looks like, follow the link to the video, close your eyes and listen:

Idris Elba as Shere Khan

Menacing, deep baritone with shades of dark and light; strong, invincible, arrogant do these qualities sound familiar? In the best Bond portrayals--I argue Sean Connery and Daniel Craig--the actors maintain a threatening undercurrent, including lighter moments, leaving the viewer puzzled about Bond's intentions.

When Ian Fleming launched his James Bond novels in 1952 (Casino Royale), Fleming characterized Bond as having "dark, rather cruel good looks." Interpret that quote as you may, but Idris Elba's portrayal of warlord, Abraham Attah, in The Beasts of No Nation, garnered rave reviews and was considered by many as an Oscar-worthy performance, though overlooked by Academy voters.

For those who argue that Mr. Elba doesn't have the risk-taking mentality, or athleticism, read about his grueling work in the same film, particularly David Fear's article about The Beasts of No Nation in Rolling Stone (October 10, 2015). Fear, an apt name for a critic of this movie, explains:

...Elba [sic] strides up to the young boy at the center of this crowd and asks "Who brought this thing here?" in a booming voice. It's a proper movie entrance, bold and brash, immediately establishing the man known only as "Commandant" as a charismatic...He oozes danger and power. You fear this person immediately.

( http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/news/idris-elba-on-beasts-of-no-nation-and-making-grown-men-cry-20151010#ixzz4C1Ji9yzd )

Mr. Elba in an earlier, smaller but career-launching role as Heimdall (the guardian of Asgard's Biofrost in Thor) commands and demands your attention, though you can barely discern his countenance. Mr. Elba's voice dictates his nuanced performance. He demonstrates intimidation, compassion and reluctant cooperation without having to see his facial expressions.

Then, there's the age-factor. Have Bond fans forgotten that Roger Moore played James Bond as late as fifty-seven-years old? Daniel Craig surpasses Idris Elba by five years, 48 and 43 respectively. The producers and Mr. Craig have discussed making another film together, though not confirmed as of today. Regardless if Mr. Elba decides and/or the producers decide not to cast him as Bond, in three years Idris Elba would still be eligible.

Another essential ingredient in a visual interpretation of James Bond includes the "sex" quotient. Could audiences accept Idris Elba playing a suave playboy? I've seen Mr. Elba wiping blood from his nose in the movie Pacific Rim as a cat would wipe its paw with its tongue. Smooth, elegant, smoky eyes that pull you into his character and never relent. I could go on, but I'm swooning at the moment.

And then, we have machismo. If Beasts of No Nation doesn't suffice for male readers, how about Krall in the new Star Trek movie, to open soon, or Stephen King's gunslinger in The Dark Tower (in production). Idris Elba can do it all, epitomizing the maverick, James Bond.

REVERIE: THE FILM, LOVE & FRIENDSHIP

My friend asked me if I'd read Lady Susan and I replied I'd read all of Jane Austen's books, but when asked to give a brief synopsis of the novella, I couldn't. A decade may have passed, but I vividly remember every Austen plot except for Northanger Abbey and Lady Susan. I'd checked out the latter novella, its cover faded, years ago from a local library, and I finished the book that night. The story had left one impression: "Lady Susan," and her ability to get into and out of sticky wickets. I'd admired the lady, then, but had stopped short at describing her as a heroine.

Present day: I couldn't wait to see the film adaptation of the novella, Love & Friendship. Walking into the Cape Cinema has always had an Old World feel-- with its proscenium arch and Rockwell Kent murals adorning the ceiling--The theater invites the audience to suspend our daily challenges and be transported. In this film, I felt as if I stepped into a concerto with accomplished soloists and supporting players.

Writer Whit Stillman's staccato dialogue (from his adapted screenplay), performed by what only could be described as a cast of character actors who used their brilliant instruments to elicit laughter and surprise from the viewer, is music to the ears. The maestro or director, again Whit Stillman, skillfully elicits dynamic performances from Kate Beckinsale, Chloe Sevigny, Tom Bennett and Xavier Samuel, along with a wonderful supporting cast. What's more, shading, light; color comprise the mesmerizing underscore.

 The pianoforte takes front and center in Beckinsale's hands. Heroine? Some film-goers may see Lady Susan as a survivor who uses her quick brain and tongue to manipulate others, to guarantee an income for herself and her daughter. Other viewers may see the character as selfish, vain, and without compassion. Kate Beckinsale craftily keeps us guessing.

The dialogue often moves at a scherzando pace as Lady Susan Vernon uses her wit, sharpened by years of discreet indiscretions, to play everyone, including her own daughter, Frederica Vernon. Frederica, the passive ingenue speaks like a muted harpsichord, often used in period movies to show ennui. Frederica's crescendo would come, nonetheless, toward the end of Love & Friendship at a most unexpected moment.

Frederica's, wealthy intended, Sir James Martin, hilariously portrayed by Tom Bennett enters the scene, messa di voce or holding the same note while modulating the tone.* Sir James honks like a horn and flutters as a woodwind during opportune moments. We cannot help but be entertained by the buffoon.

In contrast, Lady Susan's American confidante, Alicia Johnson (Chloë Sevigny), lives in London with her flummoxed husband, Mr. Johnson (Stephen Fry), who regularly threatens to send his wife back to Connecticut because he disapproves of Alicia's friendship with the infamous Lady Susan. Alicia plays her husband as she does everyone else, quietly plucking strings and hitting her crescendo without fanfare at the film's climax. Interesting that Sevigny and Beckinsale first starred together in Whit Stillman's The Last Days of Disco (1998). It's delightful to see the two a play off one another, their characters finding harmony amidst others' discord.

Lady Susan and Alicia conspire to serve Lady Susan's purposes with happy amorality, with little regard to the fate of characters in their circle, including the dashing Reginald DeCourcy (Xavier Samuel). Each woman holds a cymbal and Reginald unwittingly gets caught in the crash. The eligible, albeit reluctant hero has to overcome his youthful arrogance before he can transcend Lady Susan's seductive melody.

Whit Stillman's screenplay, a symphony of words which may need a second hearing to appreciate, is performed with full voice by its actors and conducted with a director's eye and ear. Love & Friendship, will keep your mind humming long after the film has ended.


*The New Harvard Dictionary of Music, 1986

IN MEMORIAM: PRIVATE SERVICE & PUBLIC MOURNING

Meaningful, one life will be remembered today and another has departed from this earth. One man had the gift of love: for his family, friends, community, country. The other had the gift of love: for his family, friends, and the world.

My dear older friend, Goodwin Graham, viewed humanity as a member of “The Greatest Generation,” whereas Muhammad Ali viewed our global community with his lens as “The Greatest.” To some veterans, Ali attacking his country’s policies was considered unpatriotic, but I believe Mr. Graham admired Mr. Ali, the athlete, dispensing with the politics. And that will be Muhammad Ali’s legacy, providing the glue that has helped ameliorate the sports world so that everyone, no matter their race, creed or country of origin would have the right to participate in athletics.

 Is the sports system perfect, today? No, and neither were these men. However, Mr. Graham heralded the future by learning from the past. When I met him, his wife had been admitted to a nursing home due to dementia, yet “Gee,” as family and friends called him, rose above his sadness to welcome a new friend with warmth and graciousness. He treated me like family and we’d often share a drink, a laugh and a friendly rivalry (He, New England Patriots; I, New York Giants—don’t despair Cape Cod readers, I’ve shed my New York favoritism).  He may have seen me as an anomaly regarding my life choices but he never judged or patronized me because I saw the world through a different lens. Gee’s smile overcame any barrier because his heart was filled with love.

Once an athlete himself, Gee admired self-discipline, perseverance and inner strength. He shared his opinions without reservation, but preferred anonymity, a modest life beneath the radar. In contrast, Muhammad Ali shared similar attributes via a public platform.  His choice to use his voice before, during, and after his legendary career, came from necessity, not just a desire for the limelight. Having been surrounded by bigotry, marginalized, dismissed, unjustly disgraced for declaring himself as a consciousness objector during the Vietnam war, Mr. Ali fought his way to the top and kept on scrapping.

A veteran of the Pacific theater during World War II, gunners mate, Goodwin Graham also had a fighting spirit until his death at the age of 91 on April 6^th this year. Despite serious medical setbacks and conditions, he worked his garden, went fishing, enjoyed the company of his fellow vets and other peers, and never stopped keeping busy, until forced to during the last few years.

Mohammad Ali had been compelled to stop boxing due to, then undisclosed, Parkinson’s Disease. And yet the renowned advocate for racial equality, social justice; world peace, no matter the odds, never backpedaled his opinions. His rapid-fire oratory may have slowed, but he didn’t curtail his verbal punches.

Both men will be remembered today. Goodwin Graham by a small circle of friends, family with reverence for his past, joy for how he lived, and love for the man who touched those who knew him. Mohammad Ali’s life will be revered, celebrated, and admired as it had when he lived and will be after he died. For me, neither man will be forgotten.