Category: Uncategorized

Yesterday, my twitter feed alerted me to this post on The Religious Left. In the article, the author came up with a scale, from 1 to 9, for where people in the (evangelical) church stood on GLBT issues. On the list, she specifically called out certain progressive leaders as being 7s or 8s (with 9s being the best). Now, the author was dismissive of those folks who are 7s or 8s (she wants everyone to be a 9). And, to be 100% clear, I don’t think the author is clear on her stance on the issue – mostly because the argument begins from a place of specifics (GLBT) and morphs into race, ethnicity, women as well – all valid arguments, all part of the same system, but I don’t consider all the issues as being the same because all use different measuring sticks to measure their success and these measuring sticks are, in part, developed from different historical realities for all groups. I also don’t think she understands the Episcopal Church that much either because there is no way that they are a 9 on her scale (I understand that some dioceses still do not ordain women). However, I think it is perfectly fine for her to have her opinion that some progressive Christians could be more progressive. Actually, progressive isn’t the right word. Rather, she’s saying that these Christians aren’t living up to the her standards when it comes to these issues. She’s busy breaking down the religious left (especially evangelicals), putting them on a scale, and saying “do more.” And I just love love love how upset this makes those Christians she named-drop. I love it. Why? Because it really does read, to me at least, that it’s a bunch of people saying “HOW DARE YOU SAY I’M NOT A 9!!” Really, that’s what it is. The author’s integrity is called out, her standards are judged inadequate, and some people claim that they are leaving in a huff, never to return. People try to defend themselves, they point to their other awards and status from other groups, and they call the author a toad because she has attacked their honor, integrity, and status. It’s quite fun really.

It is very obvious that the author used explosive language to make her point (I mean, she only brings up scripture when it comes to those who are 9’s). She was trying to make a point and upset people. She was trying to say that certain flag bearers for the cause aren’t really as special as they claim to be. She, from my vantage point, seemed to be arguing many things in a convoluted way – and it focuses down to frustration. She’s frustrated about the definition of inclusion being used and how the champions of the GLBT’s rights in the evangelical circles are not where she thinks they should be. I sense anger and disappointment. And you know what? That’s okay. After the actions in North Carolina last night and Colorado State House, it’s okay to be angry and disappointed right now. And I think it is perfectly fine to get in an argument and debate about what inclusion means and how it works. Did she use inflammatory language to make her point? To a degree, I think she did. Did she encourage debate? Maybe not. Do I think it is really silly how people responded to her in the comments? You betcha because it stopped being about the issue and became a question of status and symbol. If I (little ol’ seminarian) had appeared on that list as a seven or eight, I wouldn’t mind. I think that might be a good place to put me some days, though in some situations, I’ll become the biggest 9 you ever saw. Even though I’m part of a denomination that ordains partnered gays and lesbians, I intern at an Reconciling in Christ church, I go to a seminary that is 40% gay, and I consider myself active in increasing the diversity of not only ordained leaders but church lay leaders as well – I think a seven or eight would fit me just fine (though I’m not really at the place in my formation where I’m trying to play nice with Evangelicals). But I think I don’t mind because this isn’t a part of my social status quite yet. I don’t have many people seeing me and going “oh, he’s THAT kind of guy.” It’s not part of my identity or status or symbol of who I am to the outside world. If it was, I might want to be a 9. In fact, I might want to be a 9 on everyone’s list. But I know that’s never going to happen – and, you know, I’m okay with that too.

Why, yes, I did just get back from seeing a 10:30 am showing of The Avengers. The great thing about only having four days of class a week is that my Friday is free. I expected to go into the theater with only a smattering souls around me. Alas, that was not to be. It seems a local school had the bright idea to take sixty middle school kids into the showing. This wasn’t how I planned to spend my Friday morning.

However, I must admit that the kids were well behaved – or maybe I just sat underneath a speaker that drowned out their talking. I enjoyed the movie, especially the scene after the first round of credits (none of the kids knew who that villain was). The final ending, after all the credits had rolled, was also a favorite. However, I could tell that I’m a New Yorker because what seemed most far fetched to me was that such a shop could afford Mid-Town rents. Aliens, superheroes, and fantastic weaponry – that seemed perfectly normal to me. But that final shop? Sheesh. Only way it exists is if it’s rent has stayed frozen the same amount of time that Captain America was.

I saw the movie at the Magic Johnson AMC theater in Harlem and the crowd was mostly African American and Hispanic. It was interesting looking up on the screen, in 3D, and seeing very few folks on the screen looking like us. I know that’s a consequence of this movie being The Avengers and the Marvel Universe being as diverse as the ELCA is. Yet I did notice that the audience identified mostly with the Hulk. It wasn’t Captain America who got the biggest cheers nor Iron Man; it was that big green guy. I know he was written well (it seems like he was the director’s favorite) but seeing a bunch of minority teenagers scream as the Hulk saved the world was quite a treat. By the end, I was glad that all those kids were there. They pointed out the importance of a character like the Hulk even in this post-modern world. A character, full of rage, completely green, and typically buck naked, was the most important part of the film for those kids. I don’t recall seeing a Hulk cutout in the lobby. They might want to get on it and put that guy out there.

It has been two-whole-years! I think a fancy dinner, possibly involving an unhealthy amount of cheese, is in order.

Over the last day or so, a video put out by Invisible Children about the leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army has appeared on countless blogs, twitter feeds, and facebook pages in my world view. According to Vimeo, the video has been viewed over twelve million times. I have yet to watch it (they really don’t need to convince me about the LRA) but it’s been fascinating to watching this blow up., like wildfire, all over the internet. But once the initial burst of fire went by, the criticisms about the video, the organization that produced it, and the problem with the solution advocated by Invisible Children, came to light. Although the internet is great at perpetuating uncritical advocacy, it does not take long before the criticisms and valid questions come to light.

And I must say that some of the criticisms seem spot on to me (I think it’s the picture of the founders of Invisible Children holding weapons and posing with Sudan’s PLA that probably gets me the most and I tend to not be against military options). Even Rachel Held Evans was surprised by the response when she posted the video early yesterday morning (and she has a great list of resources on the story here). The debate on metafilter has also been fascinating as the conversation filled out with humanitarian aid workers located in Uganda, Sudan, and other areas of Africa.

What I really valued seeing was a member of Metafilter posting a link to their blog of pictures from their work in Sudanese refugee camps. There aren’t many posts but the pictures are beautiful, haunting, and really human. The grandmother scrolling through an iPod is probably my favorite.

To be reprinted on The Clyde Fitch Report when it is relaunched in January 2012.

What is it about gangsters? That seems to be part of the story behind the new musical, Bonnie and Clyde, on Broadway. For three years, they robbed stores, hit up a few banks, ran a gang, murdered at least 14 people (including 9 cops), and ended up dying in a blaze of gunfire as they drove down the road. They both died young, in their early twenties, infamous to the point where, before the corner arrived at the death scene, people cut pieces of bloody clothing off their corpses and even body parts to sell. There is a lot in their story that reflects the American story. So why Bonnie and Clyde on Broadway? Why now?

On Tuesday Night, after the nightly performance, a short Q&A sponsored by Broadway’s Best Shows was held at Hurley’s saloon where members of the digital press met with Director Jeff Calhoun, Scenic/Costume Designer Tobin Ost, and cast members Claybourne Elder and Melissa van der Schyff. There we engaged with the creative team as they discussed the development of Bonnie and Clyde, the passions they bring to show, and how they engage with some very complex and dynamic historical figures.

For years, Jeff Calhoun had been receiving demos from Wildhorn before Bonnie and Clyde showed up. Three songs from that demo were beautiful, engaging, and spoke to Calhoun. Only one of those songs remains in the show (“God’s Arms Are Always Open”). From there to today took five years of hard work, two cities, and a story that was continually slimmed and refined for Broadway. Jeremy Jordan (Clyde), Laura Osnes (Bonnie), Melissa van der Schyff (Blanche), and Claybourne Elder (Buck) all originated their roles and were thrilled to make it to the big stage. For Jeff Calhoun, Bonnie and Clyde isn’t a musical but rather “a play with music.” In an era of $80 million dollar budgets, Calhoun looked to make something brand new and different on Broadway. “I don’t think you need that kind of money to entertain an audience,” Calhoun said, a jab against the money giants on Broadway. With their own $6 million budget, the goal was to make a show that told the story of Clyde Barrow and Bonnie Parker – a story who tried to explain, but not justify, their story. And in a current world where unemployment is elevated, the Occupy Wall Street movement thrives, and banks are seen as villains, the need to “explain” makes some sense.

But Bonnie and Clyde was never designed to be merely a musical version of the 1967 movie. Many of the questions at the event focused on the movie and the musical’s fit into that canon. The creative team were adamant of creating something brand new, deciding to start off with the characters killed as a way to put the movie behind them. Yet, even with their attempt to kill the movie’s influence on the show, for the digital press team, the influence was very real. Even the discarding of Clyde’s impotence, even though they had to remove one of their favorite elements of the show, didn’t distract the press from making the connections.

And it was also hard to distract the overhanging concern about whether the show will remain open or not. Right before the Tuesday night show, all tickets after January 3rd were refunded (though no official announcement for it was made). Calhoun started the Q&A off with a very tert but expected lament at the press Bonnie and Clyde got from professional critics and even his crack at Ben Brantley’s expense failed to generate any laughter. A question about the different experiences the show has received in each of the three cities it has been too gradually evolved into a discussion about how open and welcoming the city of New York City has been to the show. Both Melissa and Claybourne related that they keep pictures of Buck and Blanche together in their dressing rooms, as a reminder that they are playing real people and trying to honor by being as honest to the characters as possible. And that attention to detail seems to be one of the hooks (besides the amazing vocal talent of Laura Osnes and Jeremy Jones) that the show relies on. And to highlight that attention to detail that the creative team tried to raise up by relating a story of how men in Florida would point out the issues they got wrong with the cars on the set (an attention to detail that I noticed didn’t really work in the character of the preacher of the baptism scene – trying to flip Americana religion pass a seminarian usually won’t work).

In general, the Q&A tried to raise up the quality of the show (even though they tried their best to distance themselves from the Wildhorn name) by raising up the work they put in the show, the quality of the actors, and the historical research of the Bonnie and Clyde love story. Or at least that was what the press room focused on. The music and lyrics were pushed aside. The story and the book were the focus of the night. And whether that connected with the bloggers in the room, it was hard to say.

At the end of the Q&A, Calhoun had a question for all of us, asking if it was possible to create an app where audiences, right after they saw a show, could give a simple thumbs up or thumbs down to a show. For Calhoun, he hoped to record the immediate responses that audiences members had for the play – hoping to gauge and share the emotional connection he honestly believes the audience has with the show (a connection that he believed the professional critics were unable to make). For a show that tried so hard to distance itself from the movies, it struck me as personally odd to try and promote the marketing idea that dominates tv trailers after a poorly received movie comes out: the video of audience members going “I love it!” He really wanted to know if there was an app for that. There isn’t but, based on the questions at the Q&A, the general critical reviews, and my own reaction to the show, I’m not sure hearing “the layperson’s” response is really what they would want to hear.

via io9

Did you know that you can rent a small boat and ride through Prospect Park in Brooklyn? I did not realize that until my friend Rebecca decided to throw a 30th birthday party in the park. 14 fine folks were driven across the waterways for two hours while we all drank wine. It was perfect.

The boat

The Birthday Girl

k

This week, I will be a guest blogger at Rebecca Likes. My friend Rebecca is on vacation and asked K and I to write some posts for her. Rebecca likes is a blog about clothing, furniture, design, and stores that Rebecca likes. She has great taste and a rabbit named Senator. What’s not to like? So start reading because I’m writing for it and then keep reading it because of Rebecca. You’ll be glad you did.

Vid from Advanced Style

I can always get behind a gentleman who’s first piece of advice is to get a custom suit. That’s on my bucket list.