davidvanwert.com

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad explains why Iran is not reknowned for its musical theatre.

At the White House Correspondents Dinner, Karl Rove told a table full of environmentalists (including Sheryl Crow), “I don’t work for you, I work for the American people.” Ms. Crow reminded him, “We are the American people.” But Karl had already stormed off in a huff(ington), and I’m not sure he heard. So I sent him an e-mail. It went like this:

I’m one of the American people you work for.
Yet for the past few years you’ve worked against practically everything I believe in.
Next time you want to tell some folks “I don’t work for you, I work for the American people” perhaps you should check their IDs first. Some may well be American, much like me.
Claiming you work for the American people is less than a half-truth. Given the current opinion polls, it’s only about a third-truth.

American citizenly yours,
David van Wert

If you feel like writing Karl a message of your own, please do so.

So Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Peter Pace got into a bit of a pickle while discussing the ridiculous “don’t ask, don’t tell” compromise that the radical-right pressured Bill Clinton into back in the early days of his presidency.

“My upbringing is such that I believe that there are certain things, certain types of conduct that are immoral,” Pace told the Chicago Tribune. “I believe that military members who sleep with other military members’ wives are immoral in their conduct.”

Pace also told the paper, “I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral, and that we should not condone immoral acts.”

While I applaud those politicians, Republican and Democrat alike, who’ve come forward to say that homosexuality is not immoral (John Warner, R-VA, you go girl!), but the subtler eyebrow-raiser in Pace’s nonsense has passed without comment.

“I believe that military members who sleep with other military members’ wives are immoral in their conduct.”

I’m not arguing with his stance on adultery (nor am I condoning it — I just believe that’s for the couple to decide), but I wonder why he specifies wives instead of spouses? Does our Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman not realize that women are now allowed in the Armed Forces? Or does he assume that all women in the army must be lesbians and therefore have only wives (in those states allowing such unions) and not husbands? Women in the armed forces didn’t happen last week, last month, last decade… Just what year does Pace think this is? How long will it take him to catch up to 2007?

Our current leadership handles the Iraq mess with a Vietnam era mentality. And let’s face it, that mentality was out-of-date 45 years ago. Pace’s comments only underscore just how slow they are to learn.

So next month Daniel Radcliffe, star of the Harry Potter movies, will appear onstage at London’s Gielgud Theatre as Alan Strang in Peter Shaffer’s Equus.

When this was announced months back, I was impressed by his moxie. It’s an incredibly difficult role. But as the production nears, grumblings about the play’s nude scenes have been popping up in fan sites and blogs. The ignorance of this misplaced Puritanism truly, truly annoys me.

Here are two quotes from a Potter fansite frequently quoted in news reports:

“We as parents feel Daniel should not appear nude. Our nine-year-old son looks up to him as a role model. We are very disappointed and will avoid the future movies he makes,” one parent wrote.

Another said: “I am curious as to how and why his parents said this was okay.”

Hmm. Where to begin… Daniel Radcliffe is an actor. He is challenging himself and one does that by tackling challenging roles. Equus is a modern classic. It’s also a play. If you don’t want your child to see Daniel Radcliffe nude, don’t take the kid to the Gielgud Theatre for the next few weeks. It’s that simple; problem solved. If you don’t want your child to know Harry Potter is not a real person, but a character played by an actor with a career, then you’ve got problems more serious than I am qualified to solve.

As far as how/why his parents could allow it, it’s possible that they are aware this role is one of the “big ones” in the last 40 years of plays — not trying for a role like this would be like an actor not trying out for Stanley Kowalski because SK rapes someone (I won’t say who so as not to spoil it for all the young children who haven’t seen A Streetcar Named Desire). Perhaps they realize that if he pulls off a role like this successfully, it will ultimately mean more for his future acting career than all 7 Harry Potter films put together. Perhaps they realize he’s beyond the age of consent and doesn’t actually need their permission.

I get the feeling that most people complaining about Radcliffe taking this role haven’t the faintest fucking clue about theatre. After all, I’ve yet to read one complaint like, “We as parents feel Daniel shouldn’t stab six horses in the eyes with a metal spike.”

Fools.

 
In less annoying theatre news, here’s a website about a campaign to transform a dilapidated military fort into a performing arts and education center — The New Globe Theatre.