A few years back, I wrote a piece for the Huffington Post about new discoveries surrounding the holiday classic, Handel's "Messiah." Several months later, I followed it up with additional revelations. Given that 'tis its season yet again - it seems like a fine time to repeat the story, as just another of the many holiday traditions. Sort of like a very early, 18th century version of "The Grinch." But have a glass of nog, as well. Fa la la... Over the passage of years, we lose track of the conditions that existed when artworks were created. When those years become centuries, the history vanishes, and all that remains is the work itself.That is, until someone researches that history, and puts the piece in its original context.
And that brings up Handel's "Messiah." By any standard, it's a brilliant piece of music, which has understandably lasted 250 years. Even to those who don't share its religious underpinning, the music is enthralling, and part of the celebration of the Christmas season. Oops. Now comes this detailed, deeply-researched article in the New York Times by Michael Marissen. "So 'Messiah' lovers may be surprised to learn that the work was meant not for Christmas but for Lent, and that the 'Hallelujah' chorus was designed not to honor the birth or resurrection of Jesus but to celebrate the destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Temple in A.D. 70. For most Christians in Handel's day, this horrible event was construed as divine retribution on Judaism for its failure to accept Jesus as God's promised Messiah." Oops. Mr. Marissen does an impressive, scholarly and even-handed job uncovering the history of Handel's "Messiah." If anyone is interested in that history, do read the article. At the very least, read it before stating an opinion on it... To be clear, this is not about political correctness. This is about correctness. The truth, we are told, shall set us free. Either we go out of our way to learn the truth in our lives - and embrace it - or we bury our heads in the sand and listen to the sounds of gravel. People will still listen to Handel's "Messiah" for centuries to come, whatever the reality behind it. The music is glorious. The words? Well, be honest, it's a fair bet that most people don't know exactly what's being sung about anyway - it's 2-1/2 hours, for goodness sake. Most fans wouldn't listen to "American Idol" for that long. People tend to tune out Handel's "Messiah" about six minutes in and let the music wash over them. When the "Hallelujah Chorus" is about to begin, they get nudged and sit up straight. And even at that, the only words most people know are "Hallelujah" and that it will "reign forever and ever." (Some people probably think it's about Noah's Ark.) So, in some ways, the libretto of Handel's "Messiah" is not of critical importance 250 years after the fact. And that might be the biggest joke on Charles Jennens, who wrote the text and apparently saw the work as a way to confront what he believed was "a serious menace" in the world By having his friend Handel set his pointed tracts to music, Jennens felt that would help get his point across more subtly to the public. The result, of course, was that the spectacular music swamped over the words, and over time they took on a completely different meaning. This is known as the Law of Unintended Consequences. Or also, be careful what you wish for, you just might get it. Somewhere up in heaven, or more likely down in hell, Charles Jennens has been pounding his head against a wall for the last couple hundred Christmases, screaming, "No, no, no! Don't you people get it?!! It's supposed to be about celebrating the destruction of heathen nations, not the embracing love of mankind. You people are so lame!" And it gets worse, because starting the day after Christmas - until the next Christmas when Handel's "Messiah" starts playing again - Jennens berates himself all year, wondering if he screwed up his work and didn't make it clear. Like maybe he used too many metaphors, or commas. Or perhaps in Scene 6, when he wrote, "Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron," he should have explained who "them" was or described a different bludgeon. No doubt there will be some people aghast by the revelations (no matter how valid) about the writing of Handel's "Messiah." I also have no doubt that almost all those who are aghast have never sat through the 2-1/2 hour work. Nor that most of those ever paid attention to what the precise words actually were. But they will be aghast anyway. On the other hand, most people who <em >have</em > sat and sat through a 2-1/2 hour performance of Handel's "Messiah" likely welcome having an excuse now not to have to do so again. Mr. Marissen concludes his study with a thought on the subject. "While still a timely, living masterpiece that may continue to bring spiritual and aesthetic sustenance to many music lovers, Christian or otherwise, 'Messiah' also appears to be very much a work of its own era. Listeners might do well to ponder exactly what it means when, in keeping with tradition, they stand during the 'Hallelujah' chorus." And while singing along, they might want to add a "Hallelujah" for the truth, as well. And that, I thought, was the end of the story. But it wasn't. A few months later, while reading Volume 9 of Will and Ariel Durant's majestic Story of Civilization, entitled "The Age of Voltaire," I came upon their extensive discussion of Handel. After the passage on "The Messiah," the Durants continue on with the composer's life and eventually reach five years later, April of 1747, when Handel had hit hard times. Not only had he written a string of failures and needed to close his theater, but he went into a sort of retirement, and rumor passed that he may even gone insane, though perhaps it might have been mental exhaustion. (The Earl of Shaftesbury remarked, "Poor Handel looks a little better. I hope he will recover completely, though his mind has been entirely deranged.") However there was yet more to Handel - and to the story relating somewhat to the controversy today about "The Messiah." The Durants write - "...Handel, now sixty years old, responded with all his powers to an invitation from the Prince of Wales to commemorate the victory of the Prince's younger brother, the Duke of Cumberland, over the Stuart forces at Culloden. Handel took as a symbolic subject Judas Maccabaeus' triumph (166-161 B.C.) over the Hellenizing schemes of Antiochus IV. The new oratorio was so well received (April 1, 1747) that it bore five repetitions in its first season. The Jews of London, grateful to see one of their national heroes so nobly celebrated, helped to swell the attendance, enabling Handel to present the oratorio forty times before his death. Grateful for this new support, he took most of his oratorio subjects henceforth from Jewish legend or history: Alexander Balus, Joshua, Susanna, Solomon and Jephtha. By contrast, Theodora, a Christian theme, drew so small an audience that Handel ruefully remarked, "There was room enough to dance." No doubt, Charles Jenniens, author of the text for "The Messiah," is spinning even faster and deeper in his grave. But quality does win out over time. And so does transcending decency. And that, perhaps, in part, and in the end, may well be what we're left with. Hallelujah, indeed.
0 Comments
I should have posted this eight days ago, the night before Hanukkah, rather than the last night -- but the last night will have to do. I posted this last year, and as things of tradition have it, here it is again -- A New Tale for Hanukkah: The Legend Begins Several years back, a mixed group of writer friends was discussing religion, when it veered off track a bit. "A bit" as in, someone whimsically bemoaned that Christmas got all the good colors, while Hanukkah was pretty much stuck with blue and white.
I'm guessing that this wasn't the kind of debates Spinoza or Moses Maimonides ever got into. Though you never know. Another person decided to raise the holiday spirits, suggesting that since there was an actual, physical limit of primary colors in the world, and therefore nothing could be done about that at this point, perhaps instead a new fable could be created. A few days later, this second fellow and his wife came up with the Twin Dalmatians of Hanukkah, Pinkus and Mordechai. The pups scour the earth to bring hats of joy, filled with treats, to the children on the first night of Hanukkah. Pinkus, the cheerful one, would load them up with tasty goodies, while practical Mordechai with a bell on his collar would leave practical gifts, like slide-rules. The benefits of this new legend were clear to see. For one, it meant that that you could add a whole new color scheme to the Hanukkah celebration palate for displays across the land and trimmings in stores everywhere - black and white, the Dalmatian decorations! And also, Pinkus and Mordechai "pug helpers" would prance throughout shopping centers to the joy and happy laughter of those with childhood in their hearts. And of course, when you're competing with Rudolph, Frosty, the Little Drummer Boy, Scrooge, Magi, Santa, and so many more, it never hurts to have as many fables as possible to pass down through the generations. He and his wife wrote a few verses to show what he meant, and I thought an unfinished poem was no way to celebrate the season of holidays, and therefore completed it. Like all good stories of the season, this one ends with a miracle. They went on to create a TV series for ABC a few years later, and then another one for CBS. So, it's good to know that poetry and warm spirit in their hearts (along with a touch of lunacy in their heads) had such a positive impact on their lives. They also now have a reputation to protect and by request shall remain nameless. Since 'tis the season, then 'tis appropriate to finally bring the story out of its dusty pages where it has annually passed from glowing face to glowing face of the few lucky children to hear it told, and when a few years back on the Huffington Post I presented the new fable to the world. Okay, maybe there haven't been all that many glowing faces, and maybe it's passed Hanukkah this year (man, it came so early this year!!), but it's the holiday season and time of miracles, so anything's possible. 'Twas the night before Hanukkah, And all through the shul, Not a creature was stirring, The meshpocheh was full With latkes and brisket And kugel and more. Through the heads of the kinder Spun dreidles galore. But I in my yalmulka, And she in her wig, Settled down in our beds With warm milk (but no pig). When up on the roof I heard such a bark That I yelled "Oy, gevalt" (To the goyim that's "Hark"). And I knew with a jingle, Then a second great "woof," That jolly ol' Pinkus Was up on our roof. Though t'wasn't just Pinkus, But Mordechai too, The Hanukkah Puppies-- Those Dalmatian Jews. So I sprang to my feet And quick threw on a shmotta. And I saw our kids' hats Were now filled with a lotta: With toys and candy from Pinkus And from Mordechai, socks. And for me and the Mrs. Some bagels and lox. The dogs silently worked, As if studying Torah (Though Pinkus got playful). Mordechai lit the menorah. Then straight up the chimney Pinkus leapt from the floor. Mordechai politely went out the front door. It's hard to explain The joyous nakhes I felt As I saw the Dalmatians Go to hand out more gelt. And I heard Pinkus bark, "Kids can have all they want if." "Happy Hanukkah," said Mordechai. "And to all a Good Yontif." On the last night of Hanukkah, it seems appropriate to have this very nice (and fairly lesser-known) song from Peter, Paul and Mary, written by Peter Yarrow. There are two versions of this from their PBS concerts, the first coming on their 25th anniversary concert. But I like this one that they did on their holiday special. Sometimes on the holidays, schmaltzy works... I meant to post this the other day, but a few holidays pieces got in the way. It came about when some friends asked me my reaction to Sony deciding not to release the movie The Interview. Most everything I’ve read and seen in the media has been pretty black or white. But like most things, I don’t think it’s a black or white situation.
I certainly think it’s deeply troubling that a movie studio would pull a release because of a threat by someone bothered by the message of the movie. And I wish they hadn't done so, for that reason. But whenever people say that, they tend to stop the conversation there. And the conversation doesn’t stop there. Because left out is that reports now are that the government believes this wasn’t just a pissed off-hacker group, but the nation of North Korea making the threats. Suddenly -- if this is the case (and it may not be, but speculation would seem to take a second place to agency investigations -- the danger and reality is ratcheted up to a different level. Yet it’s still giving in to threat. But again, even that’s not the end of the conversation. Because left out further from the discussion is that the five top theater chains had told Sony that they were not going to play the movie in their theaters. Much as one might hate that a movie studio gave into a hacker threat, suddenly it becomes a different situation – because they were as much giving in to a business reality. Their movie didn’t have the theaters to play in. Perhaps they could have found an alternative -- and they still may -- but I suspect it’s hardly that easy in the short term. (That doesn’t let Sony completely off the hook, since they could release the Movie On Demand, where people could access the film anonymously, and the studio has not said yet they’d do that. But I suspect they will -- or even release the film in theaters eventually. A studio spokesman has suggested as much.) So, do we then point the finger at Sony -- or at the movie theater chains, since they’re more the ones who were giving in to a threat by hackers. But that threat was to have their theaters bombed, by people who’d shown themselves very adept at causing major damage. And the risk to the theaters’ customers would appear to be a reasonable concern for any business. On the other hand, was the threat of bombing a serious one? In today’s day and age, it’s hard to dismiss any such threat. But something like this is significantly different from what we’ve seen in past tragedies. And from all expert discussion I’ve come across says that North Korea isn’t equipped to carry out such a threat. (If it is North Korea. And if not, then hacker groups would seem even less likely.) Experts have noted that unlike terrorist jihadist groups, North Korea isn’t made up of ideologues willing to die for their country. And moreover, they have a long history of making outlandish threats – far, far grander than this – against their enemies, like threatening South Korea to turn the Sea of Japan into an ocean of fire. And never once acting on it. There’s one other thing left out of this whole conversation, too. And it’s the conversation tends to only look at one end of the controversy. It is indeed deeply troubling that a movie studio would pull a release because of a threat by someone bothered by the message of the movie. Left out, though, is that it's also deeply troubling that a movie studio would make a film about assassinating another nation’s leader, in the first place. And that the top movie theater chains would readily jump to release it. None of this is to even remotely minimize the precedent of giving in to threats. (Even if that "giving in" is more what the theater chains did than Sony, which is getting almost all of the criticism.) The mark of liberty is that even the least-deserving must get it. But the point here is to add perspective in its fullness. Consider, for instance, if the United States got involved in some sort of retribution or, worse, even a war because a couple of mokes walked through Tehran wearing signs that they hated Muslims, while desecrating the Koran and got arrested by the Iranian government and executed. We'd be rightly infuriated by the action, but to be dragged into retaliating against another country because of the idiotic actions of two thoughtless punks would be galling on its own. Even if it was necessary. I understand why Seth Rogen and others thought this movie was a hoot and even funnier being told this way. But would they or others defending their right find it just as hilarious if another country made a movie about sending in government agents to kill President Barack Obama? Some might -- and that other country would have the right, it's just a movie, especially if a comic satire -- but I'm guessing that most in the U.S. would still be up in arms. What I don't understand as readily, though, is why Sony decided to go ahead and put $40 million into making it that way??? Studios tell filmmakers to change anything and everything all the time, whether or not the suggestion makes a lick of sense. "Change the joke so it's less offensive to dog lovers." "Give the rousing speech on Page 18 that the Army General makes to the troops and have it delivered by our hero" even though he's just a mechanic, and not in the scene. Or in the army. "Change the best friend from a woman to a man." "Update the story from 1574 to present day." "When our hero punches out a guard who's stopping him from getting into the nuclear reactor to stop it from melting down in three minutes, have him wink so the audience knows he's really a nice guy." And Sony decided to just let it slide to let their movie be about killing the leader of a foreign country -- a country that had been placed on our Terrorist Nation List!!!!! And theater chains thought it was a great idea to show this movie. And open it on Christmas Day!! Did no one think that maybe this idea should be given more thought?? Never mind having the "right" to do it one way or another. Filmmakers always have "the right." That has never, ever, not ever, never never stopped a studio from saying, "Change it. It's a very bad idea. Or we won't give you $40 million." I'm concerned that Sony were hacked. (How could one not be?) And that they and the theater chains threatened. And also that they caved. But that doesn't mean I can't also be bothered that all this was caused by thoughtless, unnecessary arrogant stupidity. And that it should be part of the conversation to be rounded and proper. And as highly-bothered as I am that the movie theater chains and Sony caved, I also am able to understand their decisions. On her show Friday, Rachel Maddow compared this situation to when the Ayatollah Khomeni put a fatwah of death on Salmon Rushdie and threatened publishing house, too, who caved, until pressure by writers and the public pushed them to release the book, The Satanic Verses. But the situations, while overlapping in some ways, are significantly different. First, Sony actually did get really hacked -- it wasn't a mere threat. And second, a movie theater filled with hundreds of people watching a specific movie has a target on it. Random people wandering into a bookstore can be there for any reason, to buy any of a thousand individual titles. I've seen lots of people, too, comparing this to Charlie Chaplin and Donald Duck and other films from the past making fun of Adolf Hitler. This was never about "making fun" of anyone. It was a movie about trying to kill someone. Oversimplifying and getting your comparisons totally wrong tends to suggest you don't grasp in full the issue you're talking about. As I said at the beginning, I don't see this as a black or white situation, where the conversation ends there. Some may. Fine, I understand. But I disagree and find that limited thinking. Ultimately, for all those rightly outraged that a movie studio pulled a movie, I think that much too little outrage is being given to the consideration that this was likely an attack, in many ways, on the United States and its internal business structure, as opposed to merely being just about various companies' actions which were deeply, problematic -- though understandable in part. Making this a simple, "It was wrong to pull the movie," response is, in the end, just that -- simplistic. It was wrong. But this is a deeply complex situation that is far more involved (and different) than most people are making it. I wish the movie theater chains first, and then Sony reacting to them didn't back down. I think it's a terrible precedent. Yet I understand why Sony did pull the movie, and that it was the movie chains that helped force that decision. And I understand, too, why Sony chose to make the movie this way. And that they had every right. And that it's just a movie. And a comic satire at that. And we shouldn't let another country dictate what is produced here. And I think it was stupid to make the film that way, and they helped cause the problem that they and we all now face. Well, as long as I've been posting less-known holiday songs and also videos of Kukla, Fran and Ollie...why not put the two together! Here's Fran singing to Kukla and Ollie. And what I like about this clip is something that occured often in the show -- Kukla just flopping on Ollie's head and laying there in adoring friendship. And as a holiday bonus, here's a medley of Christmas songs that the Kuklapolitans sing. (With a little help from Burr Tillstrom, of course...) Most of this is not TV footage, but comes from an album they put out, but it's wonderfully edited with appropriate photos. And then it does end with color footage of them that comes from a Carpenters Holiday Special. This last footage is the special treat, since the song they sing is what I was specifically looking for. It's their version of "Deck the Halls." (Deck the halls with boughs of holly. Hang the mistletoe for Ollie..) And of course you get to see them in color. (They did do the last few years of the show in color, by the way. I just haven't shown any of that footage.) But why it's a particular joy for me is that the sequence includes a rare appearance by my favorite Kuklapolitan (who I talked about in the original article), Cecil Bill -- pronounced Sess-uhl. He's the one third from the left. Cecil Bill is a bit lunatic and speaks in a language unknown to man, but which the others all understand perfectly, merely different incarnations of "toi ta toi toi toi." And yes, as a results, it's perfect that he's the one who gets to sing the fa-la-las... Just in time for the holidays, this is a very funny segment (with a great payoff) from the Conan show. In this clip, Conan has to participate in the Secret Santa event for the office party, and does a bit of research on the person he selects. |
AuthorRobert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. Feedspot Badge of Honor
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|