Do you remember this one? If you want to understand what’s going on in the new Wild West of America, take a look back at Mel Brooks’ masterpiece.
In 2008, the American people hired a new sheriff: Barack Obama. That didn’t sit well with most of the white folk. In fact, some of them wanted to run him out of town, along with the rest of his kind.
I know it’s not exactly the same in real life, but the hate that has seemingly come from nowhere is tied to the American’s electing Obama President. To the previously silent majority (?) this was a step too far. Whose fault was it? they asked.
The answer was clear: Democrats.
And not only that but those pesky Lefty Loonies re-elected him in 2012!
When the time came for him to step aside, the Dems decided to put forward a Woman!
What in blazes is going on?
The Solution?
The Republicans put forward their own version of the town drunk, Jim (the Waco Kid): Donald Trump.
(I’m sure the red hair was just a gene wilder than the rest.)
But this is nothing more than a plot to ruin small town America, so that the greedy industrialists can run a steam train through it, on their way to making a fortune.
Conclusion
In all seriousness, the fiery rhetoric, that has suddenly lit up the political landscape in the States, is threatening to engulf the country in flames. How can such hatred exist?
Hedley Lamarr: My mind is a raging torrent flooded with rivulets of thought cascading into waterfall of creative alternative….
Blazing Saddles, indeed! More like taking the piss…
There are many theories as to whom Richard Cory refers. Some have suggested that two individuals who lived in Gardiner, Maine (Robinson’s home town) may have been the models for the character: Sedgewick Plummer; and Frank Anne. Some have even proposed that it was Robinson’s brother, who had squandered his part of the family fortune and fallen on hard times in the 1890’s.
But my instinct says that Richard is actually Robinson himself, who may have been feeling down when the poem was written. Perhaps he was contemplating suicide, but he presented it as someone else, because he recognized that no one would understand why. The ‘story’ is written out in just sixteen lines (such is the power of poetry) and the point-of-view is from the “common man”. The moral of the story is that money doesn’t bring happiness, even though everyone thinks it does.
Paul Simon brought the story forward into the 1960’s with his reworking of the poem into a Simon & Garfunkel song. Here’s the Wings’ version:
One was found in George Soros’ mailbox yesterday. That alerted the police to a potential threat to other liberals. Today, the rest were delivered. This is unprecedented. Two former Democratic Presidents were targeted.
But this is a bit too suspicious, in my opinion. Who threatens ‘past it’ politicians? They are protected by the Secret Service. The Soros’ package made them more vigilant. No harm was going to come to them.
Was this a self-inflicted threat? I wonder.
I wouldn’t put it past the back-room boys in Washington.
Recently, one of the other administrators of Fountain International’s Facebook page posted this image from last January. It has had a lot of interest paid to it, in the form of ‘likes’ and other reactions.
“Maybe, this is the way through all the violence,” is the sentiment behind the image.
But it is nothing new.
Gandhi and King would be so pleased
On the original post, a great many comments said essentially this: Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr, did this first. Passive resistance as a tactic against police/military brutality is very effective. However, it also takes a very strong will not to be provoked into responding to verbal taunts and threats.
But even Gandhi and King weren’t the first to do this.
Jesus Christ
“If someone slaps you on one cheek, offer the other cheek also. If someone demands your coat, offer your shirt also.” (Luke 6:29 New Living Translation)
There aren’t many who would die rather than retaliate. Gandhi and King never got to face a ‘legal’ trial and then execution; they were both assassinated.
Jesus knew what he was doing would lead to his death and he accepted his fate. In doing so, he changed the course of history. He also changed our relationship with life.
Sometimes Kneeling is effective, too
Colin Kaepernick started a movement of protest to highlight an abuse of power. He did it quietly during the playing of the American national anthem before NFL games. Soon it caught on, partially fanned by the focus of publicity by the media, partly by the bombastic response from their Commander-in-Chief. Soon, players all over the NFL were taking a knee.
The fact that Kaepernick lost his job, and his livelihood, demonstrates his commitment to this cause. Now, he’s the face of Nike. Maybe, he’ll become Pope one day.
Conclusion
There really is nothing new under the sun. Perhaps, it is just the lack of knowledge that makes people myopic. Look at the bigger picture, folks.
Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice collaborated on a rock opera concept album in 1970. Then it was staged in the West End of London, and, later, Broadway in New York. The story was intended to stimulate discussion and get ‘bums on seats’. It did both.
Then Norman Jewison decided to adapt it to the silver screen. And that is when this rock opera came into its own.
Jesus Christ Superstar seemed to some to play fast and loose with the Christian history of the life of Jesus, but the Dead Sea Scrolls got there first, and Lloyd Webber and Rice were only following the Gnostic thread that had been ‘understood’ after Jesus died on the cross.
Here are a few things that the film got right.
Jesus was Short
Up until 1973, peoples’ received wisdom was that Jesus was the ‘perfect’ human being. But that may have been just wishful thinking. Jesus’ comments about imperfections seem to be self-directed. And he also seemed to be empathetic with women’s role in society. Not your usual macho man, then.
Mary Magdalene was Special
For some reason, the public have always presumed that the disciples were only male. If there were any women hanging around, they were ancillary only (cooking and caring for the disciples’ well-being). It is now understood that Mary was the “Apostle to the Apostles” which means that she studied Jesus’ words and grasped their meaning before the rest.
Not of this World
The idea that there was a Kingdom of Heaven as separate, but within Israel, would have been too much for the Jewish leaders of their day. When questioned by Pilate, Jesus explains that he is not of this world, which made no sense to Pilate. That comes across clearly in the film.
Simon Zealotes was a Zealot
This means that Simon was part of a group that wanted to overthrow the Romans. He thought, for sure, that Jesus was the long-awaited ‘anointed one’ who would lead them in battle. Unfortunately for him, Jesus’ mission was much more subtle than that.
Judas Iscariot loved Jesus
So many individuals over the years have tried to rehabilitate Judas’ reputation, including Taylor Caldwell with her book, I Judas. I feel that this story is the only one to get the truth of his devotion to Jesus across to a wide audience.
Herod Antipas was a Fool
When Jesus was sent to Herod (because he was from Galilee), Herod wanted Jesus to perform a miracle or two (“turn my water into wine”) and when Jesus didn’t, Herod and his courtiers mocked him. The circus-like atmosphere would have seemed too silly for the Jews.
Israel was a War Zone
Jewison (interesting name, eh?) shows how volatile Israel was during those years by using tanks instead of chariots. Romans were the invaders, usurpers of Jewish sovereignty. During the late 60’s and early 70’s, Israel was still trying to protect itself from outsiders by being on constant wartime alert. (They still are…)
The Final Scene
The best way good Jewish boys could finish the story was not to have Jesus resurrect from the dead. That’s why the ending is left so ambiguously vague. Their job was not to sell the afterlife of Jesus, but to focus on the seeming waste of a good life (from their perspective). Jewison let a little light through by having a shepherd and his flock cross the hillside beneath the empty cross during the closing credits.
Last night’s episode unfolded in a very methodical, orderly fashion. Anne felt unloved and unlovable. Why? Because she felt ugly with her red hair.
The backstory took us to her orphanage days where she was the target of a nasty bully. The script that keeps running through her thoughts reflects what that bully had inflicted on her. Unfortunately, some of the kids at school are now echoing similar thoughts by calling Anne and her friend, Cole, freaks.
Life can be so cruel sometimes.
Beauty versus Brains
Let’s face it: no one is satisfied with what they’ve got. They want what someone else has.
Anne wants to be as beautiful as her best friend, Diana.
Diana wants to be as smart as Anne.
But Anne meets a peddler on her way home from school. She trades her sandwich for a bottle of hair dye. Then she goes home to remedy her situation.
Literally Green
L.M. Montgomery knows how to tell a tale. The payoff of this sequence has Anne’s hair turn green instead of ebony. The medium is the message.
Now she has to have it all cut off, since nothing else would undo the mess.
The look on Marilla’s face, before she makes the first scissor snip, says it all. This is what vanity gets you. You lose your distinctive look and you face embarrassment with your peers. Oh, such a cruel world.
Conclusion
I was smart in school. The other boys didn’t appreciate that. One of them even tried to ‘punish’ me for it, by beating me up. (John Prince, I’m talking about you…)
But the Universe has a way of balancing the books: I wasn’t great at sports; I was ‘so-so’ in looks; and I turned into a writer, which made me a natural introvert.
Even now, I prefer to observe and report. When the term ‘intelligence’ is bandied about, my version is that of a ‘secret agent’.
I no longer envy anyone their life. I have a motto that states that ‘no one knows what goes on behind closed doors.’ And there but for the grace of God go all of us.
I caught the first episode of this British series on PBS last night. It seems to be a reasonable facsimile of what life in the 1700’s would have been like in Virginia. (Interestingly, it was almost totally filmed in Hungary.)
Two thoughts occurred to me, partway through the show: one, it was made in the style of the “Outlander” series; and, two, this documents the birth of the American Dream.
It also occurred to me that British shows are more female focused when it comes to historical drama. Why is that?
Demographics
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to work out that women make up the majority of people watching television in the UK. Their fellows are either down at the pub or over at the football pitch cheering on their favourite teams. The girls are waiting at home with the kids. Simple, really.
Anyway, history is boring: who won what battle when and where? We all hated that part in school. But add the point-of-view of women to the story and history takes on a more interesting aspect, humanity.
All the great authors and dramatists knew that: if you want bums on seats, you have to attract the women.
Who Better than the Brits to tell the Tale?
If there is going to be a story-teller to provide a ‘true’ insight into what really happened, especially in colonizing the New World, the descendants of those colonists will be just a little bit prejudiced. The newcomers came from the Old Country. The reasons for their migration are tied to events in the United Kingdom. The seekers after their fortunes came to America to forget what had happened before. And forget they did. But those they left behind did not forget, and they are now sharing their insights with the greater world.
(Sometimes, and I cannot imagine why, Americans think that any story about their beginnings should be played by Americans. They have a distrust of British accents, I suspect. It may also be that they wish to distance themselves from their own history.)
Other Tales Before This One
“Banished” was set in the penal colonies of New South Wales in Australia. It was a harsh environment, and the authorities were merciless to the inmates, but, again, the Australians that we know and love descended from that mass migration.
“Outlander”, as I mentioned before, does the reverse: an American woman goes back two hundred years in time to life in Scotland (and visits other places along the way, inclusing France, Jamaica, and, yes, even Jamestown).
And at the heart of every story is a love relationship which transcends time and space.
My daughter, Rosanna, suggested that I take a look at this television series. (Each episode is called a “chapter”: the show has 31 chapters, so far.)
I’ll have to admit, I’m not a fan. True, I haven’t watched every chapter, but the ones I’ve seen have not endeared the concept to me. Still, the series does have its fans, and they include TV critics.
Euphemisms
I suppose what strikes me about the premise behind this show is the avoidance of knee-jerk reactions. That’s why there is no ‘heaven’ or ‘hell’, just the ‘good’ place and the ‘bad’ place. Talk about trying to have it both ways.
In my opinion, this completely squares with the idea that there is no heaven, ‘above us only sky’ (John Lennon). But the milquetoast attempt to sell us on this ‘perfect vision of an afterlife’, lacks true grit, as far as I am concerned.
Learning Circles
The only thing I see with the four main characters is the fact that, even though they are dead, they aren’t automatically ‘perfect’. In fact, they seem to have brought over from life their ‘normal’ reactions, and that would be entirely correct, in my understanding.
By wanting to learn ethical philosophy, the group has shown that they recognize their failings as humans. The show’s situational comedy comes from the individuals learning to be better people, almost in spite of themselves.
Plot Twists
Season two gave us a total turnaround. The afterlife was not as it seemed. The ‘good’ place was actually the ‘bad’ place, and the afterlife ‘rewards’ were actually eternal ‘punishments’. That kept the story moving forward in unexpected ways.
Season three has just begun, and the four have been allowed to return to life on earth. The twist is that their deaths were averted, and they have no awareness of the afterlife. Their ‘eternal being’, Michael, has come along with them, together with his robotic assistant, Janet, in order to ‘prompt’ them to take their next ‘correct’ steps, and sometimes to make things happen. The plot lines are unravelling because Michael and Janet keep ‘breaking the rules’. What message does that send us? Something is rotten.
Conclusion
I was suspicious of the whole thing from the first moment I watched it, but that is because I came in at season three. Eternal beings don’t act like Michael.
If you are looking for a little diversion and don’t mind that the story is silly and the acting is over-the-top, you will adore this show.
