Letters to the Editor
Ben Sen
Published Letters: 541 Editor's Choice: 98
-
Looking At Wilson
[Read the article: Beyond the Multiplex]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I've followed Robert Wilson's work since his first production at an old Yiddish theatre on the Lower East side, when he had a couple of long legs walk across the stage as if a man thirty feet tall was passing through.
The reviewer fails to mention that for the visually inclined, rather than the verbal such as himself, Wilson creates a theatre like no other. I am actually amazed Mr. O'Hehir doesn't point this out, since it is generally recognized. Long after he and I and ninty-nine per cent of those who read this are gone, theatrical scenery and staging will be influenced by Robert Wilson.
It's hard to believe at this late date that even needs to be said.
That may not be reason for everybody to go to the theatre, but for those who are interested in seeing something they haven't seen before, and for the most part will not forget, Wilson is a real treat--not unlke say Antonioni the filmmaker when he discovered the power of slowing things down instead of speeding them up. If all theatre were simply to see how clever or insane the characters are it would be boring.
Since Susan Sontag abolished the notion of "high culture and low culture," I'm not sure some of the artists she most admired have profited. Genius, the sheer ability to see things in ways not seen before in three dimensional space, deserves what it is due.
That is very much in evidence in viewing the work of Robert Wilson. Unless it's badly done, getting to know the history and more about what goes on in the mind of such a person sounds to me like something that should be recommended highly.
-
Paglia: Fantasist or Realist?
[Read the article: Salon Interview: Camille Paglia]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This was my first exposure to Camille Paglia, though I've heard enough about her. I find her more interested in personalities and self-righteousness than issues--though that is a formula for success.
If we all need to support poor Condi because she is a woman in a bad spot, shouldn't we be supporting Hilliary too--or does her relationship with a philanderer who desecrates public places render her unacceptable?
Perhaps Al Franken is boring for the most part because he doesn't naturally deal in the slander and moral baiting that is the stuff of right wing talk radio.
I think most of what she did here was dismiss most relevant discussion on the issues to gain a certain iconoclastic notoriety for herself. If she favors gay rights so strongly, where is her pity for Mr. Foley--where is her understanding for the hypocracy that helps create such "moral degeneracy."
I suspect she is well regarded among salon subscribers because she implies a strong "third party" agenda, which I don't necessarily fault her for--but wonder how realisitic she is about how that party may some day be formed, and who it will actually connect with given the positions it is likely to take.
I guess I am ultimately wondering how strategic she is as a thinker, rather than this sort of "shooting from the hip," reaction to all the latest gossip. Is Camille Paglia a person who can be satisifed by what can be realistically accomplished, or a fantasist who lives in her own world?
This is the question I have about her after reading this interview.
I
-
Reparations Not Apologies
[Read the article: Shame]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I agree with Gary's sentiment entirely. It breaks your heart. It's a return to Viet Nam, only worse I believe because the true motives are still hidden--and possibly so debilitating that people of conscience don't even want to hear them suggested.
The war really only "makes sense" when the purpose for it is seen as protecting the interests of the American oil industry in the Middle East. What else would drive a government led by the men who now lead it? Since it is generally agreed that corporate interests have never been in so much control, it is only one more step to the ultimate, and most horrific conclusion.
It is obvious at this time the Bush administration only gave thought to the repercussions of their actions after it was forced upon them by what little opposition existed, and the mounting chaos that makes it more definite every passing day American lives are being lost in a war that cannot be won for a purpose nobody wants to admit.
After the election, if the Democrats win a majority, the call for hearings on the war could change entirely the current perception of the war. Why more so-called opinion makers are not focusing on this is hard to guess--perhaps they are afraid of their own culpability. How many have to admit they sold out in order to continue to have access?
Time will tell. As for an apology, I am afraid it is far to late. The real question is what reparations will be made by future administrations, and whether a majority of Americans are going to make them possible.