Lost Introductions to Christmas Songs

Christmas Song Intros

[Thank you for reading my essays. I wish you all happy holidays!]

Most songs written in the 1930s and 1940s began with an introduction. It was a way to lead you into the song or set up the context. Over the years most of these introductions have fallen away. They are rarely recorded. I especially appreciate some of the introductions to famous Christmas songs. Here are a few favorites:

This intro to “Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas” was sung by Judy Garland in the movie MEET ME IN ST. LOUIS:

Christmas Future is far away

Christmas past is past

Christmas Present is here today

Bringing joy that will last.

Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas . . . [i]

This intro to “Silver Bells” was featured in the LEMON DROP KID. It was sung by Bob Hope, rather Bing Crosby.

Christmas makes you feel emotional.

It may bring parties or thoughts devotional.

Whatever happens or what may be.

Here is what Christmas-time means to me:

City Sidewalks, Busy Sidewalks . . .

This is the intro to “Winter Wonderland”. My favorite line of the song is: “to face unafraid the plans that we made.”

Over the ground lies a mantle of white,

A heaven of diamonds shine down through the night,

Two hearts are thrillin’ in spite of the chill in the weather.

Sleigh bells ring are you listening . . .

The intro to “I’ll be Home for Christmas” was written during World War II. It is supposedly sung by a soldier away from his home at Christmas. I always imagine it being sung by a Marine on an island in the South Pacific. It holds the idea of not only missing this Christmas, but the possibility of missing every Christmas. It is the saddest Christmas song. I prefer the Leon Redbone rendition. He changes the time signature from the standard 4/4 to a waltz tempo 3/4. The feeling is I’ll be home unless I get tied up at a party or something else fun along the way.

I’m dreaming tonight of a place I love,

Even more than I usually do.

And although I know it’s a long road back,

I promise you

I’ll be home for Christmas

My favorite lost introduction is for “White Christmas”. Irving Berlin wrote it when he was in California writing music for HOLIDAY INN:

The sun is shining

The grass is green

The orange and palm trees sway.

I've never seen such a day

In Beverly Hills LA.

But it's December the 24th

And I am longing to be up North. So,

I’m dreaming of a White Christmas . . .

I wish you all a Happy Christmas and a Merry New Year.

---

[i]               There is wonderful background on this song on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Have_Yourself_a_Merry_Little_Christmas

My favorite bit is the rejected lyrics: "Have yourself a merry little Christmas / It may be your last/ Next year we may all be living in the past / Have yourself a merry little Christmas / Pop that champagne cork / Next year we may all be living in New York."

The TEMPEST: Anticipating the Next, part 1

The TEMPEST: Anticipating the Next

[This post looks at Shakespeare’s play THE TEMPEST as a myth of the transition from the Medieval to the Modern to the Next. This links to the Teeter Totter of the Brain and other writings on this blog. This will be a two parter.]

Good artists express what it is to live in their time. Very good artists do this and express something universal about being human. Great artists express not only their time and the universal, but over the course of their artistic life evolve through the eras of human/artistic development to the point of anticipating what will come next. This can be found in the work of Rembrandt, Picasso, Martha Graham, Michelangelo, Tennessee Williams and others. [i]

Shakespeare charted this path. He began by revising a classical play (Comedy of Errors), worked his way through the Middle Ages (the History plays), explored the Renaissance (R&J through Merchant of Venice), and laid the ground for the Modern (Hamlet). In his final solo play, The Tempest, Shakespeare anticipated what is coming next for us, what I call simply for now the Next. This play gives us the background, challenge and blueprint for our transition from the post-Modern to the Next.

Back Story

Prospero was the Duke of Milan, an important city-state in Northern Italy. Prospero, by his own account, was considered a well loved and benevolent leader. However, he was more interested in research and developing this mind than running a city-state. He explored the powers beyond the physical through alchemy, sorcery or magic. These were right brain medieval endeavors in opposition to left brain modern scientific pursuits.

Prospero gave the mundane responsibilities of governing his fiefdom to his younger brother, Antonio, who excelled in the details and bureaucracy of governing. As he became increasingly detached from his people, Antonio developed his allies and longed to be the Duke. Antonio made a deal with the King of Naples to support a coup in exchange for subjugation and yearly tribute. [ii] One night, Antonio and his men seized Prospero and rushed him out of the Kingdom. He was set adrift in a lifeboat with his baby daughter, Miranda. A benevolent Neapolitan, named Gonzago, provided Prospero and his daughter food and more importantly his books.

This to me is a story of how the left brain usurped the right brain or the Modern dethroned the Medieval. The right brain was the elder and rightful ruler. It led during the medieval era. Prospero feels like a medieval ruler focused on alchemical pursuits and dreams rather than commerce and the details. The left brain is to be its lieutenant or emissary. During the Renaissance the left brain rose, driven by literacy and reason, to match and surpass the right brain. Antonio is analytical and pragmatic. He plots with Alonso, the dominate unified hierarchy, to grab power. Once in power, he exiles the right brain from the leadership including a propaganda campaign to demonize the workings of the right brain.

Prospero and Miranda were shipwrecked on a supposed deserted island. It had been the island of Sycorax, a mighty witch. There they found Caliban, the part human son of Sycorax, lost and alone without his mother. [iii] Prospero also found a magical sprite, Ariel, imprisoned in a tree trunk by Sycorax. By releasing Ariel, Prospero becomes his/her/its master.

Sycorax had been a witch who was exiled from Angiers when she became pregnant with Caliban. It is easy to think of her as evil and unnatural as described by Prospero and Ariel. It’s important to keep in mind that the rising left brain pushed the culture toward the patriarchal and the denigration of women. It wasn’t just the right brain, but the feminine that lost in this rise. As the medieval era gave way to the modern there were many witches burned at the stake for consorting with the devil. The other way to read this was that there were many wise women, midwifes and sages who were eliminated so the new patriarchal could rise. This also happened as the world turned from the primitive to the classical era; the earth mother was sacrificed to the sky father. The story of Sycorax is another shadow of the transition from the medieval to the modern.

Prospero goes underground when he arrives on the island. In the Hero’s Journey, our masculine hero must go underground to a deserted place after a significant defeat.[iv] In this time of despair and questioning, he slowly rebuilds his ego and recharges for the penultimate battle. This period usually coincides with mid-life. In the healthy passage through the underground, our hero focuses on tasks of life, gains wisdom and perspective to move forward into maturity. In the unhealthy passage, he puts his energy in returning to his youth with power symbols like the possession of young women and fast transportation. The healthy passage includes grief, loss, despair, and soul searching. It takes years, at least one cycle of seven years. For Prospero, this time was at least two cycles totaling twelve to fourteen years. Many men you meet in their forties and early fifties have gone underground.

Caliban and Ariel present the two poles that the right brain must balance. Caliban is the baser, more animal part of our nature. He initially lacks the higher functions of language or reason. He is of the earth and ground. He represents the baser desires for primary needs of food, water, shelter and sex. In contrast Ariel is gender neutral and of the sky. Ariel is spirit, magic and the ethereal. Ariel transcends the laws of physical time and space and helps Prospero expand beyond his physical reality. The third aspect that Prospero must incorporate is the feminine, what Jung might call his anima. It is easier to imagine this as Miranda. However, it is more incorporated than that. It is in some way the reason we have seen this explosion of women playing Prospero.

Act I

As the Modern era has developed, technology has allowed for the world to expand and become more interconnected. What was the other side of the world has becomes our immediate trading partner. This is represented by the King of Naples choice to marry his daughter to the King of Tunisia, or Tunis as they call it. This is the impetus of the encounter in the play. Alonso, the King of Naples, is returning from the wedding with his son Ferdinand, his brother Sebastion, Prospero’s brother Antonio, Gonzago and others of the court when their ship is diverted to the island by Prospero.

Prospero with Ariel’s help brings up a violent storm that separates different groups from the ship. All are convinced that the others are lost. Alonso, Antonio, Sebastion, Gonzago, and a few lords end up on one part of the island. Ferdinand, the King’s son, ends up stranded on another part of the island lamenting his father’s death. Two servants, Stephano and Trinculo end up in another part of the island with a butt of wine.

The ship remains safely at harbor with the crew asleep. Prospero’s revenge is ordered, measured and deliberate. Where he could have simply sunk them all, he has devises on how things will come out. This is a shift from a Hamlet who cannot fathom or accept the consequences of his choices. While Prospero does not see the future, he anticipates and plans for outcomes. What is not know is not so much what will happen as how he will be/feel/know and others will be/feel/know when they get there. There is a clear differentiation between actions and human experience.

After the storm, Miranda and Prospero visit Caliban.[v] It is here that you get a glimpse of the relationship between the sage father, ingénue virgin and the wild young male sexual energy. When Prospero arrived on the island, he found Caliban abandoned there after his mother’s death. He was a wild man. Prospero treated him with kindness and civilized him by teaching him language. Miranda as she grew up with Caliban probably treated him as a brother and actively taught him.

The civilizing could not overcome his young male sexual desire for the only female on the island and the only one he ever saw other than his mother. Something shifted in the relationship between Caliban and Miranda. At some point, he made a physical advance to her; whether this was a rape or something less, the sexual advance was unexpected and uninvited by Miranda. Caliban was exiled from the cell where they lived to a nearby cave. I imagine only happened a short time before the play begins.[vi] This clues Prospero into the maturity of his daughter and speeds the need to lure in a proper suitor.

That “proper” suitor is Ferdinand, son of King Alonso of Naples. During the storm, he was thrown overboard. He made his way, with Ariel’s help, to another part of the island where he is morning the loss of his father. He follows a dirge sung by Ariel that reminds him of his dead father. In this most vulnerable place of loss, he sees Miranda for the first time. At first sight, Miranda and Ferdinand are smitten with each other. Upon seeing Miranda, he believes she is the goddess of this island that commands music in the air. Miranda thinks him a thing divine and not natural. Though this is Prospero’s desire, he must slow this down because they are falling in love with image of themselves in the other. This is what Jung would refer to as a falling in love with the anima projection. To break this spell and give them time to see each other as they are so they might develop a true love, Prospero calls Ferdinand a spy and imprisons him.  

Act II

Alonso, Antonio, the King’s Brother Sebastion, Gonzalo and a few other lords are shipwrecked on another part of the island. While most of this scene is about being stranded and the King mourning the loss of his son, I’m interested in two exchanges: Gonzalo’s Commonwealth and the attempted assassination of the King by Antonio and Sebastion.

As an attempt to lift the King’s spirits, the wise old man Gonzalo describes how he could make this barren island into a utopia. He imagines a world where everyone is equal and shares the bounty of the land. In his commonwealth, there would be no need for sweat or treachery. This idea anticipated and inspired the philosophers of the Enlightenment and even the founding of the new world. It echoed a desire to make these newly discovered countries better than countries of the old world; basically scrapping the old and starting over. This thought inspired the birth of United States. It also holds the hope of the era that is to come. In a right brain dominated world could we all be equal and share the resources? Or, is this as much an illusion as the island of Prospero?

While the King and the others sleep, Antonio tries to coerce Sebastion into killing the King and Gonzalo. In this way, Sebastion would succeed his brother as Antonio took the reins of power from his own brother. (Sebastion would also owe Antonio giving him power over him.) Once the left brain, gathers power it continues to eat up all around him. Alonso’s grief (and leaning to the emotional right brain) over the loss of his son has made him vulnerable. Antonio also demonstrates that he has not changed or repented in the ensuing years. The unrepentant must be punished. Ariel thwarts the murder and assassination by waking Gonzalo who awakes the others. Antonio and Sebastion must make a story as to why they were standing over the others with their knives drawn.

Act II also introduces the drunken butler, Stephano, and a jester, Trinculo. They meet with Caliban through awkward circumstances and he believes, with the help of Stephano’s bottle of liquor, them to be moon gods. Besides for always needing to have clowns, I wonder why this merry trio is part of the journey. Did Prospero plan to have Stephano and Trinculo wandering around the island with Caliban plotting a coup? Or, this is this something Ariel did on his own for his amusement? It seems strange on well planned out day for Prospero to allow these clowns to possibly muck it up. For me, it demonstrates how the clown energy lives outside of the control of the dominate paradigm, whether it is the left of right brain.

In his drunkenness, Caliban sees a path to freedom. While this contains echoes of freedom from slavery and oppressed indigenous people, especially the Native Americans,[vii] also speaks to me about the enslavement of the cerebellum, the so-called reptilian brain, which controls our bodily functions, primary impulses and physical intelligence. This rear part of our brain is over-shadowed and controlled by the frontal lobe. Alcohol subdues the upper brain functions. Caliban in his drunkenness cries “Freedom, high-day, Freedom!”

---

[i] This is one of my big thoughts. I plan to write the big book on this idea when I retire. It will take time and more perspective than I can muster while I work full time.

[ii] The Kingdom of Naples never spread as far north as Milan. This is another example that demonstrates the guy who wrote these plays never travelled to Italy. The writer of the plays lacked a basic understanding of geography that would be learned by travelling. The Earl of Oxford, who many believe penned the plays, is known to have travelled to Milan, Naples and Sicily. The writer of the plays seemingly never left Southern England, someone like the actor and son of a glove maker, William Shakespeare.

[iii] One version of this back story (though not supported in the text I.2.391-422) has Sycorax still being alive when Prospero hits the island. Caliban is the offspring of their union. Sycorax is dead at the beginning of the play. How and when she died is not part of this story. An interesting story to create would be Prospero’s arrival on the island, their affair and her death. I imagine it was fraught with drama. In this version, Caliban would be the half brother of Miranda, making his attempted “rape” of her double down with incest.

[iv] In the feminine hero journey, there is also a transition similar to going underground for women. For most women it occurs between child raising and coming into the wise woman archetype or the “crone”. (The term has too much western fairy tale baggage, but it is the appropriate term for both the beneficial and shadow aspects of the archetype)

[v] I’m not sure why. Getting more firewood seems to be inconsequential. Prospero says he has other business for Caliban, but does not ask him to do anything else. Symbolically, getting the fire wood to provide warmth and cook food fulfills a basic need. Perhaps, the idea is that even when performing great magic on a monumental day, you still need to attend to gathering firewood.

[vi] This incident was catastrophic for this little nuclear family of Prospero, Miranda and Caliban. They had lived like a family for a dozen or more years. It is reported in Act I Scene 2, lines 345-365. Prospero uses the text “thou didst seek to violate the honor of my child.” It sounds like “rape.” I put quotes around the “rape” because it is unclear if this was an attraction that was easily rebuffed by Miranda or Caliban’s attempt to physically take Miranda that was stopped by Prospero. There seems to be some disconnect between the actual incident and the reporting. This often happens in Shakespeare. Miranda is clearly upset in the play by what happened between them what feels like soon before the action of the play. Between the First Folio and last century, some scholar when editing the text decided that the “Abhorred Slave” speech should be spoken by Prospero rather than Miranda. Doing so really takes the teeth out of Miranda and the incident. Thankfully, the speech has been restored to Miranda in the last century.

[vii] The impact of the European arrival in the Americas on the natives is a story that has been watered down. It is possible that the diseases and warfare brought by Europeans killed up to 90% of the native population. A hundred years after Columbus “discovered” the new world, Shakespeare had to know about this genocide. (That phrase might be harsh, since most of the deaths were unintentionally caused by disease that the Europeans were unaware they carried.) Some productions of the TEMPEST want to make the play predominantly about the

subjugation of the colored man by the white man. Being part English and part Native American, the dichotomy of this relationship lives deep in me. However, it is a part of the large canvas of the play, though not the whole story.

Random Thoughts 12/04/12

Random Thoughts 12/04/12

Hello,

I'm working on a long piece about THE TEMPEST and how Shakespeare anticipated our Next Era, but work and the holiday season have delayed its posting.  It’s not there yet. So here’s an evening rambling.

Tonight, I posted on Facebook a line from the Showtime series, HOMELAND. Abu Nazir said "the mind gambles with both ears".  He was speaking about the conflict another character was having between two world views.  The ears are operated by the opposite sides of the brain. (Left ear/Right brain; Right Ear/Left Brain)  The ears can’t help but hear with the world view of the side of the brain that guides them.  The two sides of the brain are as different as their opposing world views. The mind must decide which brain’s world view to hear. It must gamble on the “right” one.

It’s interesting that in images of the devil and the angel whispering in someone’s ears, the devil is almost always on the left.  While this goes back to an idea of the left being bad/sinister, by having the devil talk in the left ear it(/he, often she) is talking to the right brain. It is saying try something new, go off the straight and narrow course, have a little fun, feel something. The angel is telling the left brain through the right ear to stay the course, don’t question, follow the morals of a patriarchal authority. Different brains: different world views.[i]

I was having lunch with Jan Strnad today. He works with me and is a captivating writer.[ii]  We got to talking about why people believe what they believe.  He was talking about some friends who are into the mystical paths. He tends to be more skeptical. My parents have their Southern Baptist beliefs; while my views are both more expansive and not trusting of anyone else’s religious system.

I’m becoming convinced that religious beliefs are based as much on the dominant side of the brain a person is using as much as anything else.[iii]  The left brain plays into a monotheistic, patriarchal, system based on words and the literal legitimacy of the sacred book.  The right brain likes a poly- or pan-theistic view with a strong matriarchal lateralization based on emotion and experience.  Right brainers can go with everything. (Very Unitarian until you become too radical about it, then it veers left.) Left brainers are often skeptics.  It’s funny that the atheist and the right wing zealot can both be dominant left brainers. 

One of my favorite lines in Shakespeare is: Hamlet’s “There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

I keep thinking that the goal is to hold the two worldviews of the two sides of the brain to both be true at the same moment; to hold the opposites; to embrace the dream of the impossible while holding onto a sturdy skepticism.  That’s way we need to live in this 21^st Century.

---

[i] While he might not have been the first to have the angel and the devil on the shoulder, Shakespeare gives us one of the earliest versions of this in the Launcelot Gobbo speech in Act II, Scene 2 of THE MERCHANT OF VENICE. Images of the Devil whispering in the Ear from Google

[ii] I felt compelled to give him an adjective, like one reads in reviews.  Working in the theatre, we often joked about what adjective we got in the reviews. Jan is so much more than an adjective. Here’s the link to some of Jan’s writings at Amazon. Read his two newest works, the novel THE SUMMER WE LOST ALICE or his graphic novel RAGEMOOR. http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=jan+strnad

[iii] There’s a lot more information on this in The Teeter Totter of the Brain series I wrote.

The Macbeth Riots

The Macbeth Riots

When I lived in New York, down on 10^th Street between First & Second, I walked through Astor Place every day on the way to the subway. There was a triangular building on the west side of the square with a Starbucks on the first floor. Each day as I walked back and forth to the subway, I mused how it would be the perfect place and building for a theatre. For some reason, I had a deep connection to that place. Years later, I discovered that on that site sat the Astor Place Opera House. In 1849, it was the site of the worst riots New York ever saw. New York City was put under martial law, something that would not occur again until Sept. 11, 2001. These riots are sometimes called the Astor Place riots. There are also called the Shakespeare Riots and the name I prefer, the Macbeth Riots.

By 1848, the American actor, Edwin Forrest, had risen to be this continent’s first acting superstar. He had had success playing across the States and in Europe. Depending on who you asked he was good or better than the leading English actor of the day, William Charles Macready. Forrest was known for a physical and declamatory style of playing characters like the Indian Metamora, the Gladiator Spartacus and Shakespeare’s greatest tragic characters. Macready was known for his refined, well spoken, naturalistic performances of the classics. For a time Forrest and Macready were close friends. Then, during a performance of Hamlet by Macready a hiss came from the box where Forrest was hearing the play. After many letters to the newspapers, Forrest finally admitted to the hiss. He wrote that he was enjoying Macready’s performance of Hamlet until Macready added a “fancy dance” to the action for which Forrest felt compelled to hiss.

A feud grew between the actors and their fans. It played out in the papers, on the streets, in the playhouses. The feud struck a chord in the fledgling country still straining from its forebear. It also divided the early English immigrants from the more recent Irish immigrants. It was a part of the class war dividing the northern cities.

In May of 1849, it was announced that Macready would be playing Macbeth at the Astor Place Opera House. Forrest was announced to play Macbeth that same week at the Bowery Theatre. The Astor Place Opera House was the venue for the elite and well off of the city. People arrived by carriage with footmen. They and came dressed in tails and fine gowns. The Bowery Theater was the people’s theatre. It was a rowdy playhouse filled with the workers in this growing city. The two sides were set driven by the argument which actor’s style was the best Shakespeare, the more authentic.

On May 9^th, Macready was shouted from the stage at the Astor Opera House. There was an increased threat of violence if he continued his run. Forrest capitulated and changed his bill for the night of May 10^th to Spartacus. The owners of the Astor Place Opera House and other men of note in the city met with the Mayor and Police Chief demanding that Macready be allowed to play. For what is freedom if a man cannot speak Shakespeare without being hooted from the stage.

On the night of May 10^th police surrounded the Opera House. The crowd formed to see what would happen. As Macready began to perform the crowd inside and outside the theater grew out of control, the militia was called. Shots were fired. By the end of the night at least 25 people lay dead with over 100 wounded. [i]

While many other factors inflamed the riot, the central cause was how to play Shakespeare, what I would call the battle between Art and Entertainment.

In American culture, and possibly throughout the modern world, there is a split between art & entertainment. Art seems to be thought-provoking, stylish and for the higher mind. Entertainment is an amusement for escapism, lacking in thought, and engaging the low brow. This split is possibly the greatest hurdle to making better theatre. And, movies, music, opera, dance, ballet, well, any live performance.

This split is seen in Shakespeare production in America that usually breaks down between Summer and Winter Shakespeare.

Winter Shakespeare tends to take itself very seriously. They are doing art. The themes and concept is tantamount. This is often a Director’s theatre or Designer’s Theatre over an Actor’s Theatre. The main connection is with the intellect. While they might throw in a comedy to balance the season, the staples are Shakespeare’s high tragedies: Hamlet, Lear, Othello, Macbeth, Julius Caesar, Romeo & Juliet. The other tragedies: Titus Andronicus, Antony & Cleopatra, Coriolanus and Timon of Athens, are more worrisome and less performed. They like the problem comedy Measure for Measure, though avoid Troilus & Cressida and All’s Well. The major Histories, Richard III and Henry V, and 1 Henry IV, can get some occasional play if they are feeling ambitious. The major comedies are added to the season to bring in box office though they are usually disdained. It tends to be the year we did Lear, not the year we did Midsummer.  

Summer Shakespeare tends to happen outdoors on (hopefully) beautiful nights in a beautiful setting. I’m not sure if we actually have Joe Papp to thank for this, but he definitely popularized the idea. It is in many ways an idea: people picnic, drink wine, and then watch some Shakespeare. They’re there for laughs, diversion, fun with friends and a beautiful experience. The fare is usually Shakespeare’s festival comedies: Midsummer Night’s Dream, As You Like It, Much Ado About Nothing, Twelfth Night, and Comedy of Errors. Producer’s wish that Shakespeare had given us more sure fire choices; even Twelfth Night has its darkness and challenges. The other comedies are riskier or have challenges: (rape, torture, anti-Semitism, or just lack satisfaction in the Hollywood ending way. Loves Labours Lost is fun, but the guys don’t get the girls at the end. It’s unsatisfying.)

It’s not just in the playing of Shakespeare. We also see this rift between summer movies intended for the masses and young men versus the winter films intended for select adults and award season.

When the first professional theatres were built in Elizabethan England, Shakespeare and his contemporaries understood the need to play to both the drunken apprentices standing in the yard along with the nobles sitting on padded chairs in the boxes behind the stage. Shakespeare wrote for the basest part of the human and our highest level of spirit. Good entertainment and high profits demanded it. Shakespeare and his company also realized that theatre lived in engaging the whole person, the whole society. It was good for business and good for theatre. Our challenge is to re-knit this connection between the two.

---

[i] You can find the full account of the Macbeth Riots in: The Shakespeare Riots: Revenge, Drama, and Death in Nineteenth-Century America by Nigel Cliff.

Bathsheba Syndrome

Bathsheba Syndrome

As the news media and the American public become all hot and bothered over the breaking David Petraeus sex scandal, many are using the phrase “the Bathsheba Syndrome” to identify the cause. It refers to the story of King David and Bathsheba from the Old Testament of the Bible and other traditions. It is an apt story/myth to describe the abuses of power that sometimes befall a successful (and previously ethical) man. We’ve seen so many men, so many of our leaders (and a few women and as the glass ceiling continues to be dismantled we will probably see more) fall into this trap. The seeds of the downfall are sowed in the very ground of success.

The term was coined in a paper called: The Bathsheba Syndrome: The Ethical Failure of Successful Leaders by Dean C. Ludwig and Clinton O. Longenecker, published in the Journal of Business Ethics in 1993. [Link to the paper] The authors were looking at the business impact of leaders whose moral failings occur in part due to their success. There was also an interesting article in Stars and Stripes this last March called Do fired Navy COs suffer from ‘Bathsheba Syndrome? by Wyatt Olson that references the other article and brought it much deserved attention. [Link to the article]

David and Bathsheba story/myth

David went from being a shepherd to the King. He slew the giant Goliath with his sling and a stone. He was a righteous man who believed in and spoke for the one true God. God rewarded David by having him replace King Saul to become King. He had a fast rise to power and wealth.

After conquering everyone around Israel and Judah, expanding the boundaries of his Kingdom, and the pressures of ruling, King David grew complacent. When fighting season came around he sent his chief of command, Joab, out with the army to fight the Ammonites rather than go himself as Kings were expected to do. He stayed home. One night he was strolling on the terrace of his palace that built high to give him a vantage over his kingdom. While strolling, he looked down and saw a woman bathing on her rooftop. The bible says “She was very beautiful to look upon.” (The Jewish Midrash says that Satan came in the form of a bird and knocked down the screen shielding Bathsheba.)

David enquired of his servants who she was. The answer came back she’s Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah the Hittite, one of your generals, and the granddaughter of one of your most trusted advisors. He sent for her. She came unto him. He came into her. I mean, He lay with her.

Bathsheba conceived and David needed to cover up his sin. (Remember its cover up that gets you rather than the initial crime.) He sent to the battlefront for her husband, Uriah, to return. After asking him to report on the battle, he told him to go home, eat at his table, sleep with his wife. Uriah replied “The Ark, and Israel, and Judah, abide in tents: and my lord Joab, and the servants of the lord, are encamped in the open fields; shall I then go into mine house, to eat and to drink and to lie with my wife? As thou livest, and as thy soul liveth, I will not do this thing.”[i] (Now there’s a custom. While the country is at war, all soldiers will abstain from dwelling indoors and sleeping with their wives. If everyone in the military followed this custom today, we’d have fewer and shorter wars. If you included Congress and the President, it might be the end to all American wars.)

King David would not be foiled. He had Uriah stay another day. That night he feasted him and got Uriah very drunk. But, Uriah still did not lie with his wife, Bathsheba.

King David sent a sealed message back to the front with Uriah. It commanded Joab to set Uriah at the “forefront of the hottest battle.” He commanded Joab to retire the rest of the army when Uriah was beset by the enemy so that he might be “smitten, and die.” This was done and ‘some’ died, including Uriah the Hittite.

After a short period of mourning, David took Bathsheba to be one of his wives.

Along came Nathan, the Prophet. (Prophets weren’t so much future tellers as truth speakers. Truth to Power. They said what is. They said what wasn’t being said, which is why many of them were executed.) Nathan comes to King David and says “Hey man, how’s it hanging?” (I always imagine the long haired, sandal wearing prophets of the Old Testament being like the hippies of the 1960s.) “What’s shaking?” replies David. (I always imagine the Kings of Israel trying talk like the prophets, trying to be cool.)Nathan says “Some bad things are going down; you need to be hearing.” “Talk to me brother.” says David.

Nathan tells this story: “Down in the town, there was this rich man and this poor man. The rich man had many oxen, sheep, goats and rams. The poor man had this one ewe, this one little sheep. The poor man, he loved this ewe. He fed her off of his own plate, let her drink from his own cup, let her sleep in his house with this kids and family. This ewe was like a daughter to him. Well, you know what happened, this rich man had a brother visit from out of town. He had his servants take the poor man’s sheep rather than taking from his flock. He had it slaughtered and feasted his brother.”

Hearing this story, David got irate. He cursed and screamed saying “the man that hath done this shall surely die.” And Nathan replied, “You be the Man!” Nathan said that God said “I’ve given you all this. I took you from being a shepherd to being King. I gave you riches and wives and power. I was planning to give you even more than this. And, you go and do this evil in my sight. You have Uriah slain along with others? Therefore, the sword shall never depart from your house. I will raise up evil against thee in your own house.”

David immediately repented of his sin[ii], but he had done the deed. God’s wrath was upon him. The child died of an illness shortly after being born. One of David’s sons raped one of his daughters. Another son killed the rapist son, and then tried to overthrow his father along with the trusted Joab who followed the order to have Uriah killed. David’s story became a regular soap opera, like Dallas, or the Petraeus Affair.

Ludwig and Longenecker analyzed the cause and conditions of these failings in their article. They found that they were not due to general low moral character. Actually the ones who were most egregious in their acts were those who had been the most moral and virtuous in their rise to success. The ethical violations did not lead to the success but followed in the wake of success, more of a by-product than a direct cause. It is the shadow side of success that is the potential pitfall.

Here are the causes they listed:

1.                  Success often allows managers to become complacent and to lose focus, diverting attention to things other than the management of their business.

2.                  Success whether personal or organizational, often leads to privileged access to information, people or objects.

3.                  With success usually comes increasingly unrestrained control of organizational resources.

4.                  Success can inflate a manager’s belief in his or her own personal ability to manipulate outcomes.

They found: “Even individuals with a highly developed moral sense can be challenged (tempted?) by the “opportunities” resulting in the convergence of these dynamics.”

I can’t really speak to what happened with General Petraeus, or Eliot Spitzer, or Clinton, or Madoff, or any of the countless others, but we might need to look at how our very system sets them up for fail in such a huge way.  

---

[i] This is found in 2 Samuel 11 of the Bible. I like the King James Version. It's what my father, the Southern Baptist Minister preached. Also, my ability to understand Shakespeare was helped by being raised on the King James Version of the Bible. Did you know many Elizabethan/Jacobean Poets like Shakespeare helped write the King James Version of the Bible?

[ii] David's song of repentance is  Psalms 51

Consilience

Consilience

As I write about brain architecture, new physics, psychology and history, I hear a nagging critic that tries to convince me I’m unworthy saying: “These are realms for scientists and people with PhDs.”  There seems to be a warning that goes “Leave it to the Professionals!” and “Don’t try this at Home!”

Our Modern World respects the separation and division between fields of study. With the rise of the left brain came categorization and compartmentalization. Disciplines have been divided into micro-specializations. (It’s a good rule of thumb in the English language is if a word is long it derives from a Latin and is more cerebral than visceral.)  When the two sides of the brain were more balanced there was a greater emphasis in having a wide range of knowledge and experience.  The generalist ruled rather than the specialist. 

Iain McGilchrist, who wrote the brilliant THE MASTER AND HIS EMISSARY: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World, commented in an interview that the research into left-right brain architecture was set back in the 1980s by the popularization of the topic.  After the major research by Gazzaniga and Sperry in the 1960s, the social sciences, humanities and arts adopted the research and applied it to their areas. (It made sense with what they already knew.)  It did not matter that books like DRAWING ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF YOUR BRAIN made the new brain research accessible or that it provided an entrance to an idea that allowed and encouraged so many to express themselves artistically through drawing.  Real scientists did not want to be perceived as delving into pop science.  Serious science can only be understood by scientist.

The same thing happened with research into the emotions. 

Even Mr. McGilchrist, who balances the training of a Psychiatrist/Neuroscience researcher with having been an English Don who taught at Oxford, was unable to avoid the criticism on his research and his conclusions in his erudite and meticulously written book.  The biggest criticisms seemed to state that what we currently know about the brain can’t possibly be translated into a view of our how we humans have lived or can live.  I thought the purpose of all human endeavors was to express how we can live in our time.

E. O. Wilson wrote a book in 1998 that he called CONSILIENCE.  He chose this word and title to describe “a literal ‘jumping together’ of knowledge by the linking of facts and fact-based theory across disciplines to create a common groundwork of explanation.”  He chose this word over coherence due to the rarity of usage had preserved its original meaning.[i] 

He theorized that to solve the really big problems that face us in the new millennium the combine the natural sciences will need to collaborate with the social sciences, humanities and arts (gods forbid).  This was a bold move for a man of science, though not a new thought.  It was an idea that he shared with the thinkers from all time periods where there was a balance between the left and right brains, such as the Golden Age of Greece, the Renaissance or the Enlightenment. 

We must also accept that it is not only the scientists that shun the non-scientists.  Most intellectual people are completely oblivious to basic scientific knowledge.  We are doing much better than when C. P. Snow delivered is influential lecture, The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution, that brought attention to the divide between the Sciences and the Humanities.  He criticized the so-called “intellectuals” of being ignorant the most basic scientific principles.[ii] 

I appreciate Snow’s argument.  About twenty years ago, I realized that I had absolutely no understanding of the theory of relativity or even the beginnings of quantum mechanics.  I knew they were important discoveries and theories of our time.  As a purported intellectual person, I felt I should have a working knowledge of these huge advancements in our description of how our world works. 

For a while, Adele and I ran a group we called the Whole Actor Research Project (WARP).  We met regularly with a group of actors to explore and research alternative rehearsal and performance techniques.  Our research pulled inspiration from the current advancements in the physical and social sciences.  Our actors had advance training in their field (most had terminal degrees - Master of Fine Arts in Acting) and extensive professional experience.  In our studies, the finely tuned physical and emotional intelligences of our actors had access to more finely tuned information than most people.  This was especially helpful in our studies on impulse and emotions.

The challenge is in finding ways for the fields to speak with each other. I appreciate the scientists’ distrust of the arts.  We are speaking from opposite experiences and I could say opposite sides of the brain.  Also, artists in trying to be accepting, fail to exert the quality control and rigor to match the scientists’ standards.  We artist need to step up our game to play with the scientists because our voice and information is needed to create a true consilience.  It will be in the unification of all of our perspectives that will help to express our age and help us to solve our challenges. [iii]

---

[i]I recommend reading E. O. Wilson’s book.  It is a great read.  Here is a little more information on Consilience. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience

[ii] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Cultures_and_the_Scientific_Revolution#cite_note-Nature-9

[iii]This is an interesting TED Talk where the scientist Nalini Nadkani has worked with artists of different types to expand her work on conserving the tree canopy environments. http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/nalini_nadkani_on_conserving_the_canopy.html

As You Like It: What if Orlando knew?

As You Like It: What if Orlando knew?

Of all of the heroines in Shakespeare’s Canon, I have always loved Rosalind. Since I first read her at fifteen, she was my desire. But, I hated her play, AS YOU LIKE IT. The problem was Orlando. I could never be as stupid or vapid as he had to be not figure out this boy in the forest, Ganymede, was actually Rosalind, the woman he fell in love with at Court.[i] He’s wandering around the forest posting hideous poetry extolling the virtues of “his Rosalind”, then he meets her disguised as a boy and he doesn’t recognize her. What a dolt.

Remember, both Rosalind and Orlando were banished from the Court. They separately escaped to the Forest where Duke Senior is hiding out after being usurped by Duke Fred. When Orlando meets Rosalind in the forest, she is disguised like a teenage boy called Ganymede. Rosalind (as Ganymede) abuses Orlando for marring the trees with bad poetry and questions if he is a true love. She/he offers to cure Orlando of his love sickness by having him pretend that he/she is his love, Rosalind. Orlando accepts the cure, to pleasure and annoyance.

Everyone plays Orlando as if he doesn’t know Ganymede is actually Rosalind. Most play this misidentification until the end of the play when Rosalind returns in her female attire. Some Orlandos figure it out in Act V, Scene 2 when Orlando responds: “I can live no longer by thinking.” to Rosalind’s question: “Why then tomorrow I cannot serve your turn for Rosalind?”

How could Orlando be so stupid as not recognize her? Being in love with Rosalind as I was, how could I see myself in this dolt? I’m sure I would have figured it out. It doesn’t help that most Rosalinds do not pull off the boy disguise. I mean, who are they kidding? And, don’t start flinging phrases like the “throes of love” or the “willful suspension of disbelief”. I thought, if theater was to instruct me on how to live in my world (and find a girl like Rosalind), I needed a better example than Orlando.

I stage managed WOMEN OF WILL, PART II, Tina Packer’s exploration of the feminine in Shakespeare. These lecture/performances gave/give Tina the opportunity to discuss her big ideas about Shakespeare and the chance to play all of the leading women in Shakespeare.[ii] In the second part Going Underground or Dying Tell the Truth,[iii] Tina and Johnny Lee Davenport played Rosalind and Orlando in a section of Act IV, Scene 1. They were well past being the age of young lovers. While Tina’s Juliet was fully believable, Johnny Lee and Tina’s maturity deeply undermined the situation of Orlando believing that this Ganymede was not actually Rosalind. It didn’t work. He had to become more foolish to keep it up. And, she had to ignore that he was a daft.  Watching it night after night, I wondered: what if he knew?

What if Orlando knew that Ganymede was Rosalind upon their first meeting in the forest?

Part of the greatness of Shakespeare is that every line can hold many meanings. When you speak the text of lesser playwrights, there is usually only one or two ways to say it. Shakespeare can go lots of places. I started hearing Orlando’s lines with the thought, he knows. It worked for every line. He can know it is Rosalind and choose to play along. This makes him smarter and not an idiot. He chooses to play her game. The flirtation and getting to know you aspects of the scenes become more heightened and sexy.[iv]

The question that follows is: If Orlando knows Ganymede is Rosalind, does Rosalind know that Orlando knows? Either right away or at some moment? And, if she knows he knows, does he know she knows he knows? And does she know that he knows she knows?[v]

When I directed AS YOU LIKE IT at The Shakespeare Project in Frederick, Maryland, now called the Maryland Shakespeare Festival, we gave this idea a go. When Drew Kahl auditioned, he said he’d play anything but Orlando. He couldn’t play that idiot, even Silvius’ unrequited obsession with Phoebe is more playable. However, he became intrigued with the idea of Orlando knowing. It completely worked in the rehearsal room and added so much to the playing. Outside onstage in the big field I doubt many playgoers could figure out the convention, though it continued to inform the playing. I’ve always wondered how it would play in a more intimate space. We played that he knew Ganymede was Rosalind; she realized he knew; and he suspected she knew, though it was unclear if she knew he knew she knew. This added more fun. Don’t believe me? Give it a read with the thought that he knows: As You Like It: III.2 lines 294-435; IV.1; it informs IV.3 lines 74-183; V.2; and V.4.

What I liked best about the idea is that it made the play between Rosalind and Orlando smart. The lesson Rosalind was teaching Orlando was how to love. He was learning how to love her rather than be in love with the idea of her. This was not displaced courtly love. This was the love of two equals.

By learning how to love and come into balance with his own femininity, he could forgive and save his brother’s life when threatened by the lion. The realignment between the masculine-feminine in the relationship between Orlando and Rosalind led to resolving the masculine-masculine feuds between the brothers. Duke Frederick could meet the religious man and not attack Duke Senior and the people of the forest. The play could end in love, marriage and procreation, rather than in hate, bloodshed, and death.

I learned from an Orlando who could recognize the boy in the forest as the woman he loved. This was an Orlando that I could aspire to be. While he learned how to love, so did I.

---

[i] Short synopsis if you need more: Duke Frederick has led a coup to oust his brother, Duke Senior. Duke Fred allows his niece, Rosalind, to stay in the court with his daughter, Celia. They’re besties. Duke Senior has fled to the forest where in my view he is hunkering down and preparing for the coming battle against his brother. Orlando is the youngest son of the deceased Sir Roland de Boys. His older brother, Oliver, rejects him. The action in the play is driven by brothers who hate each other. Orlando decides to go to Court to win money by wrestling the champion, Charles, the Wrestler. Oliver pays Charles to kill Orlando. Rosalind meets Orlando. They are smitten. Orlando wins. He beats the champion. When Duke Fred learns he is the son of Sir Roland de Boys, he exiles him. Orlando also learns that Oliver is planning to kill him. He escapes to the forest to join up with Duke Senior. Meanwhile, Duke Fred tells Rosalind she has to leave the court. Rosalind and Celia, who won’t be separated, devise a plan to go find Duke Senior. Due to the perils of young women travelling alone, Rosalind decides to disguise herself as boy. It is in this garb that she meets Orlando in the woods. When she meets him, she abuses him for marring the trees with bad poetry and being a lover. She offers to cure him of his love sickness. Orlando, supposedly believing this is a youth, accepts his cure which involves him treating the boy as his Rosalind.

[ii] WOMEN OF WILL was/is brilliant. It has impacted everything I think about Shakespeare. I count myself lucky to have worked on it. Tina still performs it, sometimes as one part, other times as a six or seven part series. If you have a chance, see it!

[iii] Going Underground or Dying to Tell the Truth – Tina’s thesis is that in the middle plays, the heroines have two choices: disguise themselves in some way and live in a comedy (Portia in Merchant, Viola in 12^th Night, Helena in All’s Well, or Imogen in Cymbeline) or stay in their womanly robes and end up dead in a tragedy (Juliet in R&J, Portia in Julius Caesar, Ophelia in Hamlet, or Desdemona in Othello). They can’t speak the truth as women and stay alive. To survive, they must subvert the system and disguise themselves to speak the truth. The feminine must go underground to survive. It’s pretty bleak, but get’s better in the later plays when the daughter’s redeem the fathers.

[iv] By having him know he is a she you avoid the homoerotic foibles of Orlando falling for Ganymede who is a guy, though secretly played by a girl. He likes a girl, but now he is falling for this boy. Does he like boys or is it because the boy is playing the girl he loves? In Shakespeare’s theater, a boy played a girl pretending to be a boy. Ambiguous sexuality makes for a good telling of this story, but becomes a bit of red herring in any production that does not exclusively want to be about that.

[v] There is a great RSA Animate by Steven Pinker on this topic of communication. I don’t agree with him on all things, but this is shall we say spot on. In it, he talks about the politeness of being inexact in our language. What is implied is different than what is spoken directly. http://www.thersa.org/events/rsaanimate/animate/rsa-animate-language-as-a-window-into-human-nature