Birmingham

...now browsing by category

 

Darkroom at the Birmingham Museum of Art

Thursday, March 24th, 2011

And now a piece by guest writer Erin Bishop about the current Darkroom exhibit at the Birmingham Museum of Art.

***

Birmingham’s art scene has so much to offer, but the Birmingham Museum of Art is one of the city’s greatest gems.  Our treasure trove boasts several fine collections, exhibits, activities and even a restaurant for the seasoned artist and new-to-art alike.  If you’re one of those who says, “I don’t understand art.  I don’t want to look at some crusty old pictures,” you have much to learn, my friends.

I’m no artistic genius.  I don’t have a Ph.D. in art history.  I haven’t ever made any artistic creation of value . . . unless you count the cardboard reindeer from kindergarten that my mother unfailingly brings out for Christmas. But I know this. Whether you know a little or a lot about art, you should realize that paintings, photos, and displays are not meant to be understood; they are meant to make you feel something.

A few days ago, I found myself in search of a Birmingham activity.  Then I remembered a billboard I had passed on 280.  I guess I’m a sucker for advertising (aren’t we all?) because it did catch my attention.  I remembered the word Darkroom and a tribally-clad figure standing in the background. This either means that I have a fantastic memory or that I need to focus more on the road.  Anyways, I found that Darkroom was an art exhibit and decided to go.

Much to my surprise, Darkroom is a mind-blowing assortment of art that shook me to my core.  As an overview, the Darkroom exhibit is a depiction of life in South Africa during apartheid.  Apartheid was a time (1948-1994) when the South African government authorized segregation of the races (much like in the Southern U.S.), revoked the rights of ‘non-white’ citizens, and used brutal violence to enforce this scheme.

Artistic works based on apartheid may sound horrendous.  But these artists have created a masterpiece.  Along with the awful destruction, they captured the stunning, intricate lives of South Africans.  The exhibit is a mixture of vintage prints, recent photographs, photo-based installations, and video art from eighteen artists, including William Kentridge, Robin Rhode, Jurgen Schadeberg, Nontsikelelo Veleko, and Sue Williamson.  I wish I could describe every single piece of art to you.

I’m not going to lie . . . when I first went in, I became a bit emotional.  The pictures weren’t gruesome or depressing.  I was just touched by the reality of them.  I could talk for days about the startling and frightening connections between apartheid and our own civil rights movement.  Especially for someone living in Birmingham.  That’s exactly what the Darkroom exhibit does. It allows you to connect with history.

In the beginning of the show, there were more recognizable figures photographed in the early days of apartheid, like spokeswoman Miriam Makeba beautifully posed before a microphone and surrendered to her audience. There was also a shot of a strong young Nelson Mandela in his law office, foreshadowing more difficult days to come.  Then there was a section illustrating ways that average South Africans kept normalcy in their lives throughout social and political upheaval.

I loved the vintage photographs.  The people and places jumped off the pages and every piece told its own story.  For instance, there was an amazing photograph of an Indian family of four, apparently living in an apartment they weren’t supposed to have.  With their newborn by the bed, two parents and their young little boy all lay in bed together with newspapers in their hands.  The vividness of the people, the colors, and the subject matter was simply incredible.

I also saw images of jazzy-looking hipsters from the ‘60s with cigarettes in their mouths and grins on their faces.  There was one truly amazing picture called “sun worshippers” of a young, ripe couple sprawled out on a beach, retreating from all the hate and violence with a day in the sun.

Towards the end of the exhibit were more recent, post-apartheid images.  Many were wonderfully gritty scenes of freed, rebellious youth.  With glimpses of lyrical sidewalk graffiti and mockingly-glamorous fashion shots, you sense the somewhat distorted remains of a tumultuous time.

Ahhh . . . there’s so much I could say.  This remarkable exhibition will leave you moved and inspired.  Go see it soon, because Darkroom will only last until April 17.  Oh, and did I mention that the exhibit is free?

Titus Andronicus by Theatre Downtown

Monday, March 7th, 2011

Usually, I come up with an overall theme for a piece and weave anything I have to say around that idea.  For the Theatre Downtown version of Shakespeare’s Titus Andronicus, I don’t think I can do it.  Instead, here’s a mishmash of thoughts and ideas from my visit.  Maybe there’s a common thread in there.

ONE – We don’t remember days, we remember moments.  I had a good friend just get back from her spring break trip to Colorado and California.  In telling me about it, it was very natural for her to express her travels in terms of instances.  I saw THIS, we did THIS, and THIS happened.  In the same way, we don’t remember full plays or performances, we remember moments.  For Titus Andronicus, which Wikipedia (currently) describes as, “By far Shakespeare’s bloodiest work,” I’ll remember the moment we first see Lavinia onstage with both hands cut off and her tongue cut out.  These unforgettable moments, however, couldn’t happen and simply don’t work without all the other stuff.

TWO – After we see Livinia bleeding from the mouth with her hands missing, I think Shakespeare repeatedly badgers us with words that invoke these body parts.  “Gentle Livinia, let me kiss thy lips.” Brilliant manipulation.  Or maybe it’s like the phenomenon of learning a new word and you start to see it everywhere.

THREE – Susan Cook’s performance as Livinia got better from the moment she was no longer able to talk.  This isn’t an insult.  Actors must recognize that tiny vocalizations like squeaks or breaths or whimpers, obviously not in the script, can be like emotional bowling balls.  Shakespeare provided the foundation, but these tiny moments of frustration and anguish were as genuinely moving as anything else I’ve seen on stage.  I felt robbed, though, that Livinia’s Daddy didn’t throw his arms around her when they reunited after her ordeal.  I wanted the image of her blood all over him.

FOUR – As the other side of the dramatic coin, Nick Crawford as Saturninus also wonderfully filled the space and put life in between the words.  The text in Shakespeare can be so dense (and the words themselves have acquired so much weight through the years) that this can be difficult to remember.  An actor’s tongue is so involved, up on the Bard’s pointe shoes, that an actor can forget all the other stuff.  Saturninus is an arrogant and smarmy jackass and we knew that from about ten seconds in.

FIVE – Tim Childers stole all three of his scenes, even in small roles.  If there’s any place to ham it up, it’s Shakespeare.  Or the theatre as a whole for that matter.  Characters and personalities should be big.  There are no close-ups on a stage.  Plus, big personalities give everybody else an opportunity to bounce.

SIX – With as much emphasis as can be placed on Shakespeare’s language, it’s important to remember that theatre isn’t generally about the words.  Blasphemy and heresy, right?  But my friend in Washington, DC, recently saw a performance of Henrik Ibsen’s “When We Dead Awaken” by an Indian theater company.  The whole thing was performed in Manipuri, an Indian dialect.  The director made a choice to translate very little for the mainstream audience and, accordingly, tons of them walked out.  The director explained later that he felt he provided the play’s essence, but didn’t want the English translation to become too distracting from any on-stage performance.  It was apparently beautiful once you could accept that you had to intuit some parts for yourself.

At its core, theatre is mostly dance and singing.  Movement borders on dance and voices seem like song.  Vowels inflect and a person is what he does.  Good acting tells the story without words.  When we meet people, I believe we listen more to how they talk and how they move, rather than to what they’re saying.  People talk and move differently.  I struggle to remember your name after that first handshake because my mind is so busy subconsciously processing everything else there is to learn.  When movement is good, a show gets much more entertaining.  The way that characters touch one another – or choose not to – is very important.  At its worst, bad body language can be confusing and difficult to watch.  I’d love to hear that a Theatre Downtown director had asked a dancer or choreographer to offer advice during rehearsals as to how the quality of movement might be improved.

SEVEN – Speaking of quality of movement, Sylvester Little Jr. was the standout of this performance as Aaron, one of the evillest and most despicable characters in all of theatre.  Easily the straw that stirs the drink.  It’s fun to be the bad guy – and it must be a delight to be this good at it.  “If one good deed in all my life I did, I do repent it from my very soul.” I agree with these guys saying that this quote may be “the vilest ‘screw you’ in literary history.”  It drips with venom.

EIGHT – The decision to make the Goths, well, Goths, worked.  As a visual pun, it was funny.  As a costuming choice, it was effective in keeping these groups separate.  Then, it was well-played as straight through to the end.

NINE – The play teaches that it’s a very bad idea just to marry whoever you happen to like on any given day.  Or that the consquences of marriage can be important if you’re the Emporer.  And that the thought of a white girl (or a white guy in drag, back in the day) with a Moor has titillated audiences for centuries. “Ah, my sweet Moor, sweeter to me than life.”  “Is black so base a hue?”

TEN – The choice of music at Theatre Downtown is frequently brilliant and I always look forward to seeing the music direction in the next show.  I’d love to see even more integration of the music into the shows.  Or integration of theatre into the music.  A live pre-show, intermission, or during-the-show performer?

ELEVEN – Moments involving anger, sadness, grief, or madness are often best played straight.  Angry people often stew and get quieter, not louder.  People speaking of sadness or grief often flatten without bawling through it.  And the craziest people often say the most outrageous things as if they were absolutely ordinary.

As always, all gratefulness to Billy Ray Brewton and Theatre Downtown for producing a 400-year-old play that still pushes boundaries.

Scrollworks on Weekend Edition

Monday, February 28th, 2011

I posted an earlier piece on Scrollworks, an inspiring and genuinely good Birmingham arts organization.  Al Letson, courtesy of Minnesota Public Radio, just did a piece for Weekend Edition.  I can happily promote this cause and enthusiastically recommend his story.  Nice job, Mr. Letson.  (link to the Weekend Edition piece)

Jeane Goforth deserves the good press.

How NPR and WBHM Screwed Up And Why You Should Care

Friday, February 25th, 2011

I listen to a good bit of National Public Radio on WBHM.  For the record, I don’t contribute and I haven’t become a “member”.  The reason I haven’t is because I believe they’ve screwed up by drifting away from the mission and the public.  If they call it public radio, it should be public.

Public doesn’t mean selling “memberships”.  The Mountain Brook Country Club isn’t public, even though it’s got a public sounding name.  They raise money from a select set of citizens by selling memberships, just like NPR.

Public doesn’t mean corporate or private-sector sponsorship.  WZRR Rock 99 isn’t public, even though any schmo with a radio can listen.  They sell advertising to corporate and organizational interests, just like NPR.

Which is why it bothers me that WBHM is just now – over the last week or two – channeling Chicken Little to tell me that Congress is voting to eliminate funding for local public radio stations and that I should go – right now – to take action by contacting my local representatives and congressmen.  (They’ve got a website if you’re interested.)

No.  I won’t.  And I’ll explain why other listeners may be equally reluctant.

According to Wikipedia, National Public Radio was founded in 1970.  I have no reason to think NPR was anything other than a truly public program at that time.  NPR suffered a major setback in 1983 when somebody screwed up and spent more money than NPR had.  There was a Congressional investigation and NPR’s president was forced to resign.  I’m not positive about the history, but it appears likely that this was the start of NPR’s now-infamous “fund drives”, where NPR asks for contributions (“membership”) from listeners.  As of the mid-80s, then, NPR was definitely no longer public in any true sense.

This was a conscious choice.  One alternative would have been for NPR to ask its listeners to lobby Congress to pay for its debt.  The call to arms: “Please save our bacon by lobbying Congress.”  NPR also could have used listener contributions to pay for lobbyists.  Instead, it seems like NPR used listener money directly and failed to cultivate a relationship with the federal government.  This choice became a pattern.

Then, I’m not sure if there’s an exact moment when it happened, but over the last several years – like a neglected housewife – NPR has crawled increasingly in bed with big corporations and significantly upped its amount of on-air advertising.  According to Wikipedia, NPR does not carry traditional “commercials”, but instead allows advertising in the form of brief “statements” from major donors.  Let’s be frank.  If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.  These are commercials.  In 2009, corporate sponsorship made up 26% of the NPR budget.

Here’s the problem, NPR.  You can’t keep insisting you’re faithful after you’ve crawled in bed and rolled around with corporate money.  Once they’ve put it in you – even just a little – you’re not a virgin anymore.  So it’s irritating that NPR tries to pass itself off as “public” during its fundraisers.  Don’t keep asking the real public for more money when you’re already getting it every which way from Allstate, Merck, and Archer Daniels Midland.  I can’t be the only listener who feels jilted in this way.

You also should have paid attention to who you were getting in bed with.  According to Wikipedia, in 2008, NPR announced that it would reduce its workforce by 7% and cancel news programs because of a rapid drop in corporate advertising.  Oh really.  When times got tough, you became inessential to corporate interests and they tossed you out on the street.  Imagine that.

So now it’s really irritating that you’re crawling back to the government and asking the public to lobby for your federal funds.  It’s like asking your idealistic first boyfriend and your forsaken ex-husband to finance your current divorce.

Your website says: “Public broadcasting funding is too important to eliminate.”  But it also says: “Annual federal funding amounts to $1.35 per American, less than the cost of a cup of coffee!”  Government funding represents only a small fraction of your support.  Year after year, NPR has consciously and steadily made the decision to turn its attention and fundraising staff away from the public and government and towards wringing money directly out of listeners and corporations.  If you don’t have friends in Congress in 2011, it’s your own fault.

When you sleep with the wrong people, you pay the price.  It’s also easy to see that NPR accepted money from the same corporations that actively support politicians who voted to cut NPR’s funding.  It’s like making out with someone who hates you.  The irony is disturbing.

The parallel here is that I regularly write about our local arts organizations.  Few have any money.  My opinion is that – for any number of reasons – art and culture are public resources and have significant benefits for entire communities.  Accordingly, we should work together to ensure that all levels of government act to fund and support the arts.  At the very least, arts organizations should remember to maintain focus on your audience – the customer – and don’t let yourself stray from that mission.  Be faithful to your truest relationships and rely on those relationships to keep you out of trouble.

(Edited on 3/9/11: Today this video was released in which Ron Schiller, President of the NPR Foundation and Senior VP of Development says, “It is very clear that we would be better off in the long run without federal funding.“  I’m not too concerned with any issues from the rest of the video, but NPR appears to be exploiting their listenership’s goodwill to chase money they don’t really want or need.  NPR CEO Vivian Schiller was forced to resign because of this and other incidents.)

Lysistrata by Theatre UAB

Monday, February 21st, 2011

I just saw the Theatre UAB (and Sarah Ruden) version of the Aristophanes play Lysistrata.  I am outraged and offended.

The program warned that there would be “partial nudity” – and there was.  It warned of “adult language” – and there was.  And it hinted darkly and vaguely at “situations”.  Sexual, evil situations, I’m sure.

If you don’t know the story, it happens during a war.  The womenfolk are tired of it.  So they stage a strike.  Put as delicately as possible, they refuse to allow “marital relations” unless and until the men call off the war.  “They’ve barred the ceremonial gates.”

Presented by (at least) The UAB Cultural Activities Committee, Patty McDonald, and W.B. Philips, Jr., these folks should be ashamed at this abomination.  These are our children.  Our kids.  Our future.   They’re entirely too young to be portraying and discussing sexual themes in public or on stage.  They don’t know anything about sex.  And if they somehow do, they shouldn’t.  I mean these students – just children – had to recite lines like:

  • “From now on, no more penises for you.”
  • “Lysistrata, be serious!  There’s nothing like a dick!”
  • “The men will swell right up and want to boink.”
  • “I will stay home unhumped.”
  • “A slit should spread open.”
  • “It doesn’t take a tool to bring me out.”
  • “Oh!  My gonads.”
  • “It started bad.  How nasty can it get?”
  • “In a word, our movement’s getting fucked.”
  • “Oh what an epic prank on my poor prick.”
  • “Don’t worry.  You’ll get screwed.”
  • “Whom shall I screw?”
  • “Your manly parts are out of luck, without their regular morning fuck.”
  • “We need to snatch a piece.”
  • “There went our pussy in a cloud of dust.”

Noah Holcomb and Catie Cole

I am shocked!  It’s intolerable in modern society that a university – a shining jewel of our wonderful American education system – could stage such filth.  The trustees should put a stop to this right now.  Our good, local Christian churches should protest.  There isn’t any sex in the Bible and there shouldn’t be any in our schools.  Keep sex in the home and the workplace, where it belongs.

I am indignant that teachers and administration allowed our children to be half-dressed onstage and in provocative fishnet stockings, simulating “marital relations”.  I was not swelled up nor turned on.  Oh no.  I am a strong and moral person.  But it sends all the wrong messages to the performers and the audience.

Not only that, but this performance of Lysistrata was cruel and insensitive to minorities and the disabled.  A crippled man onstage was the butt of countless laughs.  Hypertrophy of the groin is a serious medical condition!  Jokes about other ethnicities and their accents are insensitive, especially while the only black actor onstage wasn’t even allowed to talk!  Daniel Martin’s repeated cross-dressing is becoming deviant and most certainly not funny.  Someone should talk him out of hanging out with these queer and unorthodox theatre types – before something serious happens.

I tell my dates: “Look dumb.  Chew gum.” They should definitely, positively, absolutely not be encouraged to say the same kind of things back to me.  Women have to know their place.  It’s the fabric of society, the fundamental nature of humanity, and the milk of human kindness.  Men have a place and so do chicks.  Black and white.  Plugs and sockets.  Peanut butter and jelly.  This has changed my whole view of everything.  Ack, “Women revolt me.”

I’m just teasing of course.  Lysistrata is something like 2500 years old.  And it’s still bawdy, excellent fun.  Human nature hasn’t changed that much.  I like any art that can shake a few branches and do it with a big smile.  Still highly relevant, I’d support any kind of movement to end our current conflicts.

Catie Cole did very well and was well-cast (and well-dressed) as straight man Lysistrata.  Emily Parks was enthusiastic and entertainingly goofy as Calonice.  Alana Jordan was good, as ever, as Woman #1 – a role which sounds like a millennial pre-cursor for Hollywood casting in parts like “Bikini Girl”.  James York was often hilarious as the Councilor.  Finally, Noah Holcomb was gifted throughout as the plucky Men’s Chorus Leader.

As usual, thanks to Mel Christian and Theatre UAB for letting me in on the fun.