Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Those Who Teach ... Do!

It is not often in a person's life that they get to watch their mentors work in the field in which they teach. In my life, I have had many people that supported me and guided me through my life. Two people high on the list are Ed Bara, my voice instructor, and Charles Richter, my directing teacher. Both of these men spent four years teaching me the skills I needed to enter the field of musical theater performance and direction. Fortunately, neither one was upset when I entered teaching. In fact, I knew they were both (reluctantly) proud.

This weekend, I had the pleasure of seeing Muhlenberg College's production of Kiss Me Kate starring Ed Bara and directed by Charles Richter. Throughout college, I often had opportunities to see Charles' work. I even got to work at his side for many productions. Never did I leave a project without feeling like I had learned something important about theater, directing, performance, or life. Because Charles taught me how to speak my opinions about theater, I always have things to say about his productions. Some good, some bad. Whatever they are, he always listens (and argues). These arguments have always taught me even more than the exordinary about I learned in a classroom. It was this attention he gave to me that makes him such a special teacher and person in my eyes.

Mr. Ed Bara is someone that I can't just call a mentor or a teacher. He is my friend. Seeing him perform on stage in a musical was a collision of all my worlds. Ed was no longer the opera singer who enjoyed working on musical theater material with me. He is now apart of my musical theater world. I will no longer be able to listen to Cole Porter's score without hearing Ed's voice.

The strangest thing about the experience was the sense of reversal I was feeling. It wasn't, "Wow, that's my teacher!" It was almost as if I was the adult watching my child perform. That is not exactly it, but it's the closest I can come to explaining it. It was the overwhelming sense of pride I had watching him share a gift with the audience that I honestly never knew he had. Whenever I would watch him sing in the past, he was a singer. He stood with one foot in front of the other, diaphragm expanded, vowels formed correctly, and sang the songs, giving it just enough emotion that we knew what the song was about, but not distracting us from the gorgeous operatic voice. This time, I was watching the world of acting and singing truly being put into one package.

I have stayed strong in my contention that I do not miss performing. I do love teaching and look forward to directing high school shows for the rest of my life. When I graduated from Muhlenberg, Ed warned me that I would miss it someday. "One day, my friend, you and I will get together at a bar and catch up. You will say to me, 'I want to go back' and I will say, 'Told you so.'" I didn't believe him. Who would have guessed that it would be his performance three years later that would be the cause for my hesitation from moving forward, away from performing? Damn him! I wonder if he knew ...

"Those who can't do teach." Ha! Thank you, Ed. Thank you from the bottom of my heart for giving me the opportunity to see a teacher do and do it at a level that went beyond professional. Though I have been gone for three years, you continue to be an inspiration to me. I hope that one day, my students will feel the same emotions that I felt on Saturday night!

Monday, June 16, 2008

Tony Award Recap

The big question of the night is "How long has it been since Patti LuPone has won a Tony?" I can't remember! The announcement said 1980 (for Evita), and then Patti went on to say 28 years, - which mathematically makes sense - then went on to say 29 years! It's amazing how time flies! Time also flew last night! Three hours went by pretty fast as we got to watch the best (mostly ...) of this year's Broadway season.

The night opened with a scene from The Lion King. This was the first of many Disney references of the night. Why does Disney give us so many oportunties to remember that their show was not nominated? To quote one of the nominated shows, "move on!" Not only was the performance inappropriate, but it was really bad! When did the score change notes to screams?

While Best Musical is usually the big race of the year, it seemed as if the Best Revival of a Musical category was the one most anticipated of the year. Though the Best Musical category seemed to be the biggest upset. Was anyone really surprised that South Pacific won (other than Patti LuPone)? In the words of my friend, Jeff Simno, everyone is just "gaga" over South Pacific. As said before, the upset of the night was In The Heights beating Passing Strange. Though I have not seen either show, the performances seemed interesting. I was more entertained by In the Heights performance, though I saw great potential in Passing Strange.

Acting categories had few surprises. In fact, I don't think there was the typical shocker of the evening. Patti got her glory (can she quit now?), newcomer Paulo Szot won for his performance in South Pacific (his performance was one of the nicest), and, as predicted, Deanna Dunegan and Mark Rylance won for their respective roles in August: Osage County and Boeing-Boeing.

Best Featured Actor and Actress in a Musical also went to Boyd Gaines and Laura Benanti, both from the revival of Gypsy, giving actor awards to the three stars of the Musical, but still not helping it win the overall award for Best Revival.

Now for the performances ... My vote for the best performance of the night would have to go to Jenna Russell and Daniel Evans for their rendition of "Move On" from the Revival of Stephen Sondheim's Sunday in the Park with George. It was so nice to hear the female part sung and not screamed (sorry to any of you Bernadette Peters fans out there). However, I do think the only thing that might have made the performance stronger would have been ending it with a bit of "Sunday," one of Mr. Sondheim's greatest achievements. Since we were awarding him with a Lifetime Achievement, which he reluctantly accepted through Mandy Patankin, the least we could have done was show off his most beautiful combination of music and lyrics.

Also on the top of my list was Xanadu, which surprised me. I felt Cheyenne Jackson gave a hell of a performance, causing me to wonder why he was not amongst the other Best Actor nominees. Kerry Butler, who rarely impresses me, did well, though it was obvious she was trying a bit too hard.

Though I do not like her, Patti LuPone did not do a terrible job. I only counted four flat notes throughout the entire performance, which is still a considerable amount less than Ms. Peters' "Roses' Turn" in the 2003 Tony Ceremony. I did like seeing the scene before the number. It built up the momentum and helped her get through it - though I did get a little nervous towards the end. Would she make, would she not?

While on Ms. LuPone, did she really need to remind us three (or four?) times that she has not won since 1980? Let's face it! She hasn't deserved it since 1980. Her constant reminder of the time span only welcomes invitations for us to laugh and remind ourselves that she has not been worthy since Evita. No, Patti, your Mrs. Lovett was good, but not worth a Tony.

The night took an awkward turn when the non-nominated musicals (one more bitter than the next) performed in a window of two minutes (not each - all in two minutes). Poor Sierra Boggess had about 30 seconds to get to her favorite moment of the show (and ours, let's face it) the end of "Part of Your World: Reprise." The editing of the song was very rushed and quite transparent to the main goal. Poor Faith Prince had to tell a whole story of a wedding in about 40 seconds. Couldn't we give the veteran (not to mention Tony-Award nominated) actress a little more time? Then the finale was Megan Mullally's "Deep Love" from - let me get this whole title right - The New Mel Brooks Musical Young Frankenstein. First of all, if the point of this segment was to advertise these shows, this was a terrible number to pick. Its a one-joke song (where the joke is not that funny) and shows off the actress who is in the show the least. Now, Mel, by now you should know exactly what America wants to see: "Putin' on the Ritz." Would the make-up and work be worth the 30-second slot? Hell, Yeah!

One of my favorite moments of the entire night was the Rent performance. I was one of those high school students who had memorized every lyric and fell in love with every character. It was a very nice (and short) tribute to a terrific, groundbreaking show and to its writer. I must compliment the original cast for their performance. They truly put the latest cast to shame. It was pretty evident as to why the show is closing. It has nothing to do with being dated, but more with the fact that a cast that can live up to the original just has not been found.

Finally, let's talk about Whoopi Goldberg. If we needed a reminder that Disney owns ABC, our newest "View" host reminded us last night. Disney's shameless plugs were endless throughout the night. At least the costumes she wore in those segments saved us from having to see her in her puffy, clown/pirate shirt. Ms. Goldberg, I understand if Barbara Walters does not require you to look nice on "The View," but you should have enough respect to wear a gown to the Tony Awards. At the risk of disagreeing with one of my favorite theater columnists, Michael Riedel, Whoopi should never be allowed to go near the Tony Awards again. I would rather see David Letterman host!

Overall, it was a nice night to finish out an interesting year! I am looking forward to next year when a whole new group of shows enters the arena. Anyone else excited about Billy Elliot?

Friday, June 6, 2008

LOST Theories

So a week has gone by ... There have been many theories out there about what did happen and what will happen on the ABC Drama LOST. There are a few ridiculous ones and a few interesting ones. Either way, they start great conversations. Here are a few I have loved.

Locke is not dead, but has been bitten by the same bugs that paralyzed Nicki and Paulo. If you remember back in Season 3, there was a "random episode" where two characters who we had never seen before were bitten by two spiders and eventually buried alive by the main characters who thought Nicki and Paulo were dead. This was the only way for Locke to grab the attention of the Oceanic 6, whom he is trying to get back to the island. He learns about the bugs from Juliet, the doctor on the island.

This theory definitely grabbed my attention. As I thought further, it does make some sense. Locke is a character that was once paralyzed from the waste down. The character has now taken the next time and paralyzed his whole body, keeping with one of the themes of the character. It would also make sense that Juliet, the doctor on the island, would know about these bugs. In fact, I would not be surprised if she was responsible for the bugs because of a medical experiment she was running in her secret medical facility.

I also like this theory because it would finally explain the origin of Juliet's name. As a literature teacher, I cannot help but think that Juliet is so named for a reason. It's not your average, everyday name. The female half of the tragic lovers Romeo & Juliet did in fact take a potion in the play that made her seem to be asleep. It would make sense to name the character Juliet if helping Locke fake suicide is going to be her main action during Season Five.

Christian Shephard used to work for DHARMA and was the first person to ever move the island. After becoming a doctor, Christian Shephard was recruited by DHARMA to work on the island, probably on the medical station. In the season Three finale Ben says, "I was one of the people that were smart enough to make sure that I didn't end up in that ditch." One of these other smart people was Christian Shephard. He joined the others early on and learned some of the island's secrets.

After the purge Christian was the one who turned the donkey wheel, so that the DHARMA people couldn't find the island. When he moved the island, he teleported somewhere. He eventually got back to civilization, got married and had a child (Jack). He continued working for the island until he died.

Ben says in the season 4 finale, "whoever moves the island can never come back." This only means coming back alive. After Christian's body ends up back to the island Jacob somehow "resurrected" him. He's not really alive but he still works for the island in this "spiritual sense." The same thing is going to happen to Locke. He has to get off the island because "some very bad things" will happen, so he moves the island. He knows he can't get back alive, but he's willing to make the sacrifice. When the Oceanic 6 finally bring him back he will experience the same kind of resurrection as Christian Shephard did.

I like the theory of the "Spiritual World" because it may finally explain those damn whispers we are always hearing. Perhaps there are spirits on the island (and not just in Hurley's head). I also think it makes sense that Christian Shephard would know Ben. It would explain Ben's attempt to capture Jack, Kate, and Sawyer. The only problem is that Kate has no connection to Christian ... yet! It also may have been the fact that Ben could see Jack's feelings for Kate. The main reason that Ben wanted Jack was for him to perform surgery, but why not Juliet? Wouldn't be more interesting for Ben to have the son of his enemy (who refused to perform the surgery) do it instead?

I would it if this were true because it would mean that Christian Shephard was truly not dead. This event would concur with my previous theory that Christian Shephard's name comes from the idea that he can resurrect like Jesus Christ did in the Bible (Christian + Shepherd).

It's not Locke; It's his twin, Jeremy Bentham. DHARMA experiments with cloning (there is a mention of numbered rabbits being cloned in Season Two) and Locke clones himself. This other self witnesses something bad happening. The clone gets off the island and tries to get the Oceanic 6 to come back and stop the bad thing from happening.

Are we laughing yet? This is a ridiculous theory, but one I have heard more than once. I do remember the rabbit that Ben kills. It had the number 8 on it's back -- surprising that the number on it's back happens to be one of Hurley's lottery numbers.

The biggest loophole in the whole theory is why Jack and Kate wouldn't mention this. Why wouldn't they say, "Locke's clone" or "Locke's twin"? The writers of the show are much smarter than to ever allow cloning to come into play. Why wouldn't Locke just get the Oceanic 6? Why a twin?

More theories will come and more theories will be forgotten. No matter what, there will be people who will say, "I knew it!" when the series finale finally occurs. I always love to hear LOST theories, so please feel free to share. Please give my essay on Biblical References a read as well.

Sunday, June 1, 2008

Numbers as Biblical References in LOST

"Oh my God! It was John in the coffin!" I have heard these words constantly all weekend. Ironically, people that know I worship LOST think that I need to be reminded of the most obvious things in the show. I also feel the need to hide my intelligence by not telling everyone that I knew that as soon as I heard the name "Jeremy Bentham," the man in the coffin, -- a discovery we've been waiting for since the season three finale -- I knew it was John Locke. Though I did not know much about Jeremy Bentham, I did know that he was the name of a philosopher. Since John Locke is our only character named after a philosopher, I just assumed it was John Locke.

While there is so much to discuss about the season four finale (or finales), I want to concentrate on something in this blog. I want to explore the use of Biblical references -- as subtle as they are -- in the show LOST. Perhaps some theories can be explored by looking at the names and, of course, the numbers used in LOST.

First, let's look at the flight number: Oceanic 815. The word Oceanic refers to anything having to do with the ocean or water. If we look at the books of the Bible, the first"Chapter 8, verse 15" that refers to water would be in the very first book: Genesis. Quoting from the New American Standard Bible, Genesis 8:15 says, "Then God spoke to Noah, saying." That's it! It is not until chapter 16 when God directs Noah to give his well-known mission to build an ark and save chosen ones from the flood. Could it be that the choice to call the flight "815" refers to the idea of the god of the island, Jacob, speaking to Noah (Locke or Ben?)? Was the disappearance of the island actually a flood? Are they travelling through time? To the center of the Earth? Or simply under water, destroying those who are worthy to get off the island? My guess would be that the island is an ark itself, saving those who stay on it. Though without the Oceanic 6, the ark is not complete, causing "bad things to happen."

Furthermore, according to 1 Peter 3:20, "Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water." A number of times in Season four, Jack and other characters have made references of "eight survivors." Though the question still remains as to who they are. Since the lie they are all telling has Kate pregnant when the plane went down, that would make the Oceanic 6 only the Oceanic 5 at the time of the crash, making three other people alive with the Oceanic 6. Supposedly, these people died before they were saved.

While we are on the numbers, let's look at the reappearing numbers that constantly haunt our friend, Hurley. 4, 8, 15, 16, 23, 42. When added together, we get the number 108. This number also has been seen repeatedly in the show. First, it was the number of the minutes that the islanders had to punch in the numbers into the Swan before something bad happened. It also happens to be the number of days that the Oceanic 6 were on the island before they were "rescued."

4 - The fourth verse of the Bible refers to God seeing the light and knowing it was good and dividing the light from the darkness. Could this be a reference to the division between the enlightened John Locke and the blinded Jack Shepherd (and do I really have to go into the word "Shepherd" and the idea of Jesus as our shepherd?)? It could, but I would see it more as the division between John Locke and Ben Linus and the choice that Jacob has made to use Locke as his true prophet. This line of the Bible is also the first time God claims that what he did was "good." Locke, Jack, Ben, and other characters consistently challenge each other on what is "good" for themselves and, in Ben and Locke's case, for the island.

Check out the fourth book of the Bible. Ironically, it's the book of Numbers. Whatever the numbers mean, one cannot argue that they are a major theme of the show -- though we don't know why yet. The name of this book in the Hebrew text is "Bemidbar," which means "the wilderness." This is the first place the characters find themselves, until they discover other areas of the island. Hence, the first number in the list represents the first place the characters find themselves.

8 - As already discussed, the number 8 is used in the show as the number of survivors and the Bible refers to eight souls that are saved from the flood, even though they are not represented on Noah's Ark. We also see the number 8 in the Bible as the beginning of a new cycle (since the world was created in seven days). Number eight is also the number day when the Hebrews performed a circumcisn, which is believed to represent the Covenant between God and the chosen people. It is clear that certain people feel "chosen" by Jacob.

The number 8 also refers to resurrections in the Bible. Other than Jesus Christ, there are eight resurrections that occur in the Bible, one of them being Lazarus, Jesus' dear friend. Though we've never seen anyone come back from the dead (yet), we have seen many figures appear on the island, though they are dead. Perhaps the one that has raised the most questions, Christian Shepherd, would be the ninth resurrection, that of Jesus Christ himself. Christian refers to the group that follow the word of Jesus Christ and we've already looked at the word Shepherd. So who is the Shepherd? Is it Jack? Is it Christian? Is it both? Who are the other resurrections that we should be paying attention to? Mr. Echo (one of the most spiritual characters on the series -- and one who apparently likes to come back from the dead to play chess)? Claire (by now you all agree with me that she's dead, right?)? Charlie? Of course, to follow the thought that Charlie and Echo have come back from the dead, one would also have to agree with me when I make the claim that Hurley is in no way insane. Right? Right? I have a suspicion that another resurrection will occur when they get Locke's corpse back on that island (as Ben said they would have to). It would be interesting if Locke was brought back to the island and woke up exactly 40 days after his death.

15 -
18And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and
the ark went upon the face of the waters. 19And the waters prevailed exceedingly
upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were
covered. 20Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and
the mountains were covered. Genesis 7:18-20

Fifteen refers to the number of "cubits upward" that the waters rose to cover the land when the Flood occurred. Yes, once again, we see Noah. Wouldn't it be something if one of the new characters next season (because let's face it, there will be new characters) was named Noah. Though that would ruin my theory of John Locke being Noah. By now, are you wondering what the hell a cubit is? It is a form of measurement used mainly in the Bible. Think of it as about half a yard, give or take. I would argue that the large swallowing of the island that we saw was much more than your standard 15 cubits, but "the mountains" were covered. They were covered so much that there was no island to be found.

16 - You know when you are watching a baseball game on TV or perhaps another sporting event and someone in the stands is holding a sign that says, "John 3:16"? This is referring to the mostly widely referenced line in the Bible: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Ironically, the man who believes in the "god of the island," Jacob, seems to be dead in the future. But let's remember that John Locke is alive and well on the island. For some reason, when he becomes Jeremy Bentham (a philosopher with exactly the opposite ideas of those spoken by John Locke), he perishes. What will John Locke do to tick the almighty Jacob off? I'm sure that is something we will have to wait a while to find out (perhaps the finale of season five?).

23 - The number 23 appears in the Bible often when the discussion of prosperity, abundance or wealth comes into play. It was just recently that he found out that two very rich men, Charles Widmore and Ben Linus, are fighting over the island. Ben would probably argue that Widmore is using his prosperity for evil, while Ben is trying to save the island and put it to good use (though we still don't know what that is).

The most famous reference to the number 23 would have to be Psalm 23:
"1The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want. 2He maketh me to lie down in
green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters. 3He restoreth my soul: he
leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name’s sake. 4Yea, though I
walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou
art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. 5Thou preparest a table
before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my
cup runneth over. 6Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my
life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever." Psalm 23:1-6
This passage can easily stir up images of the island in it's most beautiful form: "green pastures" and "still waters" bring out images of nature. The question is, who would this passage refer to? Jack, the "shepherd" whose main goal has been to be the savior of those on the island? Or Locke, who believes that the island has restored his soul -- or at least his legs -- and who will do anything to save the island before saving the people on it? If and when the final showdown between these two characters occurs, the answer to this question will most likely be answered. Either way, it is clear that for now, John Locke feels the need to "dwell in the house" of Jacob forever. Who wouldn't if a group of people would worship you like that? Will Locke eventually start fearing evil as he walks through the valley of his own death? Will he start doubting Jacob?

42 - Genesis 42 is an entire chapter dedicated to the sons of a very popular Old Testament figure: Jacob. Jacob's children were eventually divided into the 12 tribes of Israel. It is in these chapters that Jacob sends his sons to Egypt because there is a famine in Canaan, their home. While in Egypt, the brothers come across their brother, Joseph, whom they sold to slavery many years ago. In an attempt to see if his brothers have changed their evil ways, Joseph frames Jacob's newest favorite son ... BENJAMIN to see if the brother's will stand up for him and sacrifice themselves to make Jacob happy. So does this mean that it will actually tick Jacob off that Locke sacrificed Ben to move the island. It seems pretty clear that Locke cared very little for whatever happened to Ben. I loved Locke's creepy smile when it became obvious to him that the Others wanted to follow him now. Does this mean that Ben is the true son of Jacob or Son of God? Then who is Locke? Christian Shepherd seems to have a nice relationship with Jacob. Is "Christian Shepherd" literally what his name sounds like, the Son of the island god: Jacob? Is there a Joseph in the group -- someone who is the favorite son of Jacob? My guess would be Hurley, the character who has seen the most dead people. Joseph could not see dead people, but he was able to see things that his brothers could not.

There are so many questions still left to be answered, but I hope that my rant here brought up some new ideas. I want to hear what LOST fans out there think. Am I crazy? My students often ask me, "Did the author really think of that symbolism when he was writing this book?" Many times, the answer is probably no. But I always find it extraordinary how an author's words can be interpreted so many ways. LOST never fails to bring out the critical thinker in me. Here's looking forward to season 5 ... hopefully, we won't have to wait long.