JOHN ADAMS – THE DEATH OF KLINGHOFFER – LONDON SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA – CONDUCTED BY JOHN
ADAMS – DIRECTED BY PENNY WOOLCOCK – 2003 – DVD
As for the original opera and the
music I would advise you to check my review of the original production as
performed in Lyon, the Death of Klinghoffer’s
set of two CDs with libretto, posted on most Amazon sites. The ASIN of the
product there is B000005J1B.
I am going to insist here on what makes this film different, original.
This is not a filmed opera
production but a film shot and constructed on the basis of the opera by John
Adams. You will be disappointed because the music is not kept entirely the way
it should be. Some passages are cut off, like the Ocean and the Desert Choruses,
and the Hagar Chorus has been replaced by some TV presentation that is not in
the line of the original opera since it introduces Isaac in a chorus – which is
not a chorus anymore – that was exclusively centered on Hagar and Ishmael. This
does not balance the tale. This betrays the tale as we are going to see. The
worst adaptation/distortion is the use of plain spoken words and sentences
instead of the sung equivalent. These sections that are no longer sung are just
not in the line of the opera which was sung from beginning to end, even if with
some sections sounding more like a dirge with a recitative feel, but it was
entirely sung.
The second remark is that to add
pictures to the music, pictures that are not the direct stage work of the
singers, makes the film very difficult to understand. A film of that type is
visual first of all and since we are visual dominant we see these added images
first and they dominate the rest, the music, the words and the real setting.
The film is thus overloaded with news reels about the Shoah, the deportation
and extermination of Jews by the Nazis; with visions of the Jews arriving in
Palestine and hunting the Palestinians out and banishing them brutally out of
their villages and houses that are taken over buy the thousands of arriving
Jews in their mass exodus to the Israel of the old times, and in such scene of
appropriation of what is not theirs, of homes that belonged to other families
the sex sequence in the bed of those expelled Palestinians of a survivor of a
Nazi death camp identified by his number on his arm and the whipping scars on
his back is a real mental crime against the Palestinians and against the Jews,
a desecration of this bed and house. The Jews were captured by the Nazis,
extracted from their homes that were looted by any one who wanted to and by the
SS and Gestapo for the enrichment of the Reich, and then they were deported to
camps where they were supposed to die and it is clearly shown to us in the film.
And here we have the vision of exactly the same thing done to the Palestinians
by people who had suffered the Nazi persecutions. It looks like a compensation
for the evil they had suffered. This is strongly accusatory towards these
Zionist Jews. I was stolen my purse yesterday by a punk. So today I steal the purse
of the first person I meet in the street. An eye for an eye, but on a third
party collateral victim.
The text contains clear mentions
of such facts, particularly in the prologue, but the images multiply the impact
of ,these words, and what’s more these images do not intervene only then but do
intervene in other places in the opera, hence repetitively. The director of the
film knows perfectly well that repetition is subliminal.
In the same way the very graphic
images of the expulsion of the Palestinians, of the colonial control and exploitation
of the Palestinians, of the horrific life and also death of the Palestinians in
the various refugee camps that we can imagine are Sabra and Shatila give the
other side of this arrival of the Jews in Palestine based on the Balfour
declaration that suggested the parting of Palestine to give a section of this
region to the Jews to create a state of their own,. The worst part of this
image accompaniment of the text is that the images are often in contradiction
with the text. When the Jewish lot is evoked by the text it is illustrated with
graphic images of the Palestinian fate, and vice versa. This gives to the
Jewish suffering before, in Europe, in the
hands of the Europeans, a weight and value that is a lot more important than
what it was in the original opera. At the same time the similar providing of
graphic images of the suffering of the Palestinians at the hands of the Jews in
Palestine
emphasizes this suffering that had been kept under control in the libretto. It
then becomes completely wild and, particularly at the end the imagined meeting
of the “terrorists” in Gaza in 2003, one in a chauffeured car and two reduced
to practically disjointed and ineffective retarded people, does not show much
except that their future can be good or bad but always locked up in a
surrounding misery that makes this fate totally surreal. In other words we are
far from the original opera.
But I want to insist on the
cutting of the two choruses: the Ocean Chorus and the Desert Chorus. The first
one was going back to the very genesis of humanity in the primeval water
expanse in total darkness before creation, the creation of Adam and Eve, of one source for humanity
that is then constantly shown in the opera as divided in two as a decision of
God himself who seems to have wanted a dual or bipolar world that is easier to
control. Originally the whole humanity was one and that was the vision of the
opera modulated later by the Hagar Chorus into two and yet centered only on
one: Hagar and the Arabs. Yet thanks to the Hagar Chorus and its being replaced
by a news report or news commentary on some TV set on the ship in front of the
passengers and the hijackers explaining the two sons and the fate of Hagar and
her son banished as soon as Abraham’s wife was able to bear a child in her old
age, the whole shebang is purely flown into smoke. They even go as far as
recalling the fact that the slave Hagar was given to Abraham by his wife
because she could not bear children. And the two sons are only presented as the
founders of two religions. The original opera only insists on Hagar, on God’s
project concerning her son, to create another religion, and the cruel decision
of Abraham banishing her and her child, just like the arriving Jews banished
the Palestinians from Palestine.
In the film the Hagar distorted tale is there to call for love between the two
communities in the name of the fact they are cousins. The meaning of the Hagar
Chorus has thus been changed completely and that is a shame.
The absence of the Desert Chorus
is also regrettable. It explained how the Palestinians lived in the desert,
from the desert, entirely formatted and constructed by, for and from the desert
with an enormous contrast then with the Day Chorus when the country is showed
as cultivated from the top of the mountain to the bank of the river and how a
veiled woman has been pushed underground and is going to be drowned into cement
and other debris. The veiled woman is the Palestinians and the presently
cultivated wasteland of old is Israel.
The original opera is showing how Israel has buried the Palestinians
under their rich agriculture. We have lost that, that vision of a rich country
built and constructed on the banished and hidden previous occupying people that
haunts the land. The film preferred graphic images of the 2003 present which
has nothing to do with the original opera and is totally anachronistic and – that
is the worst part – it changes the ideological and political meaning of the
opera.
We could multiply examples like
the opening scene with Mrs. Klinghoffer confronted to the four arrested
hijackers and spitting in the face of one of them is vain, narrow-minded and it
shows the extreme hatred that Jewish woman can nourish in her heart, if she has
a heart. This opening scene is going to be amplified by the closing scene when
she is officially announced the death of her husband by the captain and her
first reaction is a destructive rage nearly including the captain in itself.
Her pain is thus translated into hatred and violence against objects and people
who have nothing to do with her own fate in spite of her accusation that the
Captain had been on the side of the hijackers, which was not the case as we
have seen all along. They were hostages just as much as anyone else. Then she
cools down a little bit and she comes to that strange concluding image that she
is pregnant with her dead husband who will not be redeemed by God as long as
she is alive. In other words she takes her husband hostage for the rest of her
life. Instead of having the Jewish understanding that the dead husband cannot
be redeemed by God as long as he is not reunited with his wife to whom he is
eternally committed, we have a mean woman getting even with fate by taking her
husband hostage against God’s redemption. How much does she hate him at this
moment!
To remain on these two, before
dying Mr. Klinghoffer is able to meet his wife, or his wife is authorized to
rejoin her husband for the second part of his soliloquy during which she has
nothing to say since originally she did not join him then. What is for him in
the original opera a soothing recollection of the past becomes then by being
addressed to the wife present in the film a sort of solace for the wife and no
longer for the husband. He is trying to make it easier for her to survive
instead of making it easier for himself to die.
Such transformation makes the
film very messy and even fuzzy on the ideological meaning. It is in 2003
literally embedded in the War on Terror raging at the time and John Adams is
conducting, which means he accepted such a drift from the original and a lot more
cautious and discreet opera, which made it a lot more humane.
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU
# posted by Dr. Jacques COULARDEAU @ 3:33 AM
0 comments
JOHN ADAMS – THE DEATH OF KLINGHOFFER – ORCHESTRA OF THE OPÉRA
DE LYON – 1991 – ELEKTRA NONESUCH – 1992
This opera by John Adams has
become mythic because it is one piece of genial invention and creation based on
a real global political event but also because some Jewish organizations
accused it to be anti-Semitic, as John Adams told David Beverly, October 25,
1995:
“Well, it for sure didn’t strike
some people as neutral. You know The
Death of Klinghoffer was picketed by the Jewish Information League when it
was done in San Francisco
and I don’t know if you’ve seen any of the reviews that came out like the one
in the Wall Street Journal.”
I won’t go further and I won’t
even discuss John Adams’s assertion then that it was neutral on the antagonism
between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Twenty years later it does not seem
to be that neutral but it does not seem to be anti-Semitic either, nor very
pro-Palestinian. The question is very hot today and we cannot be neutral on the
subject and I would say that the presentation of the conflict is rather
balanced though leaning rather towards the Palestinian side without really
being anti-Semitic not pro-Palestinian. The remarks I am going to make are
explaining that seemingly ambiguous position, though I could accept the fact
that other people might see things differently.
Let’s look at the Prologue and at
the various Choruses. The Prologue is composed of two choruses: “Chorus of
Exiled Palestinians” and “Chorus of Exiled Jews.” Then the “Ocean Chorus” at
the end of Act I Scene 1; the “Night Chorus” at the end of Act I Scene 2; the
“Hagar Chorus” at the beginning of Act II; the “Desert Chorus” at the end of
Act II Scene 1; the “Day Chorus” at the end of
Act II Scene 2. Note the absence of a chorus at the end of the opera
(Act II Scene 3).
Many people say these choruses go
by pairs: the first two, then the crossed pairs of ocean-desert and night-day.
With the “Hagar Chorus” at the center of these latter four choruses. We can
also notice that they are antagonistic pairs, except the “Hagar Chorus” that
does not have his doppelganger. But this is only on the surface.
The first chorus is about the
forced exile of Palestinians who are expelled from Palestine,
or part of Palestine by Israelis, in fact only
Jews at that moment, arriving to what was to become Israel. Palestinians had a home and
a motherland and they were expelled, made refugees by the new arrivals. On the
other hand Jews arriving from Europe had just been deprived of a lot during the
previous ten or fifteen years and they took possession of what was not theirs
in the name of Zion and the fact that they would
be the descendants of this Zion.
In other words the land they had been forced to leave at the beginning of the
Christian Era by the Romans after various riots after the death of James, the
brother of Jesus, in 62 BCE and then later on at the beginning of the second
century, riots which led to the destruction of the temple first and then later
on the destruction of the walls of the city of Jerusalem and the banishment of
all Jews, this land is considered by them as theirs. For nineteen centuries the
land which was theirs up to their banishment would have been kept and taken
care of by the non-Jews who were not banished but who had been the servants and
the serfs and even the slaves of the Jews before. So the Jews after the Second
World War arrived with little, grabbed the land and prospered. The antagonism
is historical, global and very old. It is just reenacted by the Zionist
decision to call the Jews back “home.”
But they are brothers, these
Israelis and these Palestinians who speak various Semitic languages. True
enough, but they are brothers like with Abraham’s two sons, one from his Jewish
wife and the other from his Arab slave, or servant if you prefer. But she is
banished with her new born and she nearly dies of thirst, and her son too, in
the desert. This version of Hagar’s banishment by Abraham makes the whole opera
lean towards the Palestinians, as if being banished by the Jews happened after
WWII a second time in history, and what’s more the first time happened in
Biblical scriptures. And this duality was God’s decision:
“Of this child
too I will make a nation.”
And this banishment was a
manumission. Hagar was liberated with her son with the only fate of dying in
the desert, probably to prevent God’s decision to become a reality. But there
is always an angel when it is needed by all mythologies, and there was one here
too with Ishmael, like there was one with Isaac. That’s where I say John Adams
is not neutral at all since he states the conflict and competition and
hostility between the two peoples God himself decided to establish is of divine
nature and very old, and the two peoples are not equal, or as equal as Abel and
Cain in God’s eyes. Then we are justified in wondering if the composer leans to
one side.
And he does.
Ishmael does not have his
doppelganger Isaac in the opera. Palestinians were banished twice by Jews, in
the prologue and at the beginning of the second act. Obviously Jews were not
banished from the Levant by Palestinians but
by Romans and Roman Legions. We could wonder if we could consider the Final
Solution, or Shoah, as a second banishment concluding a twenty century long
segregation and even cyclical partial extermination. But Palestinians are in no
way responsible for that. The opera clearly states in these choruses that the
Palestinian lot is not at all symmetrical to the Jewish lot. The scales tip to
one side quite obviously.
The next question to ask is now
concerned by the present time situation. And that is another story.
The “Ocean Chorus” brings the
tale back to the primeval expanse of water under eternal night from which Adam
and Eve are going to be brought up by God himself. The origin is unique and the
same for everyone. Told like that the rivalry between the descendants of
Ishmael and the descendants of Isaac is not explained, is unexplainable.
The “Night Chorus that follows is
a movement back to that distant past but this time after the two peoples had
parted because we are in the days of 1 Kings, a long time after Abraham and on
the Jewish side, and the opera brings there more or less under the belief of
Jews (which sounds strange) a trinity that is very suspiscious.
“Elijah will
return, the Jews believe, the Antichrist condemn, the Messiah judge; . . .”
We can note the chronology of the
three characters: Elijah, Antichrist, Messiah. How can the Antichrist come
before Christ himself who is the Messiah, though we could consider the Messiah
is the Jewish Messiah and not Jesus Christ, but then who is the Antichrist? The
trinity is suspicious too because it is Christian and not Jewish. Then comes
the Last Judgment, Judgment Day, Doomsday which is in our mind more connected
with John’s Book of Revelation, than with the Old Testament (in spite of Ezekiel
and Isaiah). At this moment in the opera we are in the night for sure because
all references to Judaism and to Christianity get mixed and bringing that
debate into the picture is leading to the conclusion of this chorus: salvation
for any one after the end of this world is going to be arbitrary and God’s
decision only. And that leads to another trinity that is frightening in itself:
“I am afraid
for myself, for myself, for myself”
The trinity of fear has little to
do with Judaism since a Jew accepts God’s decisions no matter what they may be,
a Muslim accepts in the same way God’s decision though one can hasten this
decision by fighting for God’s glory and dying for God, but a Christian does
not have any trinity of fear because they believe they will be judged on what
they have done in life, and only on that. What’s more it does not fit the
Christian vision to individualize that much the future after death and after
Doomsday: the congregation, the ekklesia
of the fauthful. At this moment I consider the opera has lost its references to
the ethnic, religious and historical situation we are dealing with. All the
more because after this chorus and after the intermission the second act is
going to start with the “Hagar Chorus” that brings us to the initial banishment
of the Palestinians, or Arabs as they were called at the time, by the Jews. I
must say the final declaration of Hagar is particularly powerful:
“My son will
die as a free man on his own land.”
She is manumitted but the land is
her own and she wants to die on that land of hers.
The next chorus, the “Desert
Chorus,” amplifies the desert in which Hagar and her son were bound to die if
the angel had not intervened. In this chorus the desert itself structures and
formats life, thinking and behavior.
“Is not their
desert the garden of the Lord?
. . . The
hunters shall go hungry tonight . . .
As if it [the
earth, or even stars-moon-sky-earth] had turned itself away from the world
To leap like a
fountain in the mind of God.”
The desert is everything and the
fountain in the mind of God becomes the dream, the expectation, the promise to
find one day in that desert the Persian rose, yellow and red, the rose from
Iran, a Shia Muslim country for sure (though Shia is the minority reference in Islam
as opposed to Sunni) but from another culture since they speak an Indo-European
language and not a Semitic language. Once again here the vision is that of
Islam but with mixed references and we must keep in mind the Palestinians have
three religions, Shia and Sunni Islam and Christianity (as a generic reference
to various affiliations). The Jewish religion has only been brought back there
over the last century.
And we come to the “Day Chorus”
that brings the ship and her passengers back to Egypt. It is the most confused and
maelstrom-like vision of a country that is well taken care of and cultivated
but yet a woman was there and she was wearing a dark veil and then she was
pushed underground and there with a voice coming from deep in the ground
“broken cement and sand slide into the hole” and it is going to drown this
underground voice coming from that woman they like and have banned underground.
Once again we see here the fate of those who are pushed away or under by the
Israelis who are cultivating the land.
When you see these choruses in a
sequential approach, you then can consider the real story of what the real
event is. The real event is the hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro. The
events and even the words of the Captain or his mate are directly taken from
the Memoir the Captain of the ship actually wrote after the event and John
Adams said in 1995 in
the above-quoted interview that they had a photocopy of that Memoir available
all the time in some kind of English translation:
“David Beverly: Do
you know if Alice Goodman used Gerardo De Rosa’s . . .
John Adams: Memoirs? Absolutely. Is that book available now?
David Beverly: In
Italian.
John Adams: No, there is somebody who did an English version
of it because I remember having that while I was composing. Somebody had
translated it and we had a Xeroxed typescript of it. Now I don’t know if it
ever got published or not, but that whole Captain’s monologue [from the opening
of Act I, scene 1.] is largely taken from his memoirs. It’s amazing how Alice took his words and
then put it into beautiful poetry.
This hijacking is a political
action with military force that we call today a terrorist act. The political
motivations of such acts do not change the qualification of the act. The
Palestinians appear to be “cool” at the beginning but very fast things change
when they start sorting out the passengers and extracting Americans, British
citizens and Jews. They want some kind of political benefit from this action
that has to be negotiated with Syria and the second in Command of the Palestinian
Liberation Organization, Mahmoud Abbas (the present Chairman of the PLO), but
this fails and they understand very fast that killing the passengers one by one
every fifteen minutes will not make anyone move. So they come back to Egypt,
disembark and disappear leaving the passengers and the crew behind. They had
killed one Jewish man, a crippled person who was in a wheel chair and the opera
closes on a long lamentation of his wife. And those concluding words are
sinister in meaning particularly applied to humanity:
“Suffering is
certain.
The remembered
man
Rising from my
heart
Into the world
to come,
It is he whom
The Lord will
redeem
When I am
dead.
I should have
died.
If a hundred
People were
murdered
And their
blood
Flowed in the
wake
Of this ship
like
Oil, only then
Would the
world intervene.
They should
have killed me.
I wanted to
die.
I wanted to
die.”
We note the husband will not be
redeemed as long as his wife is not dead. That’s a Jewish superstition I guess.
And out of love for him his wife wants to be dead but she cannot kill herself
and she regrets she has not been killed like him. And the world can only be
moved if the blood poured in the ocean becomes oil. Oil is the only incentive resource
that will make the world react to anything. This is of course not gratuitous
and it is political.
So I think all elements show the
opera is balanced but not neutral. It is in fact extremely pessimistic about Palestine in particular
but also about humanity in general. But the Biblical roots of the problem make
this problem unsolvable. Thus the opera is pessimistic about the future of
humanity, if humanity has a future, and that’s probably why it was so
successful, so influential even. Over the last thirty years or so, maybe some
more, definitely since the first oil crisis of 1973 the Middle
East has become the geopolitical center of practically all serious
problems, especially after the end of the Vietnam War in 1975. In the West there is
a morbid fascination for unsolvable problems provided they remain limited in
space. As for time it does not matter. The civil war in Sri Lanka lasted 30 years or so and very few
people cared till Sri Lanka
was discovered as being the perfect hub for maritime commerce in the Indian
Ocean by China.
The West is always speaking of
human rights of course, but in the rest of the world of course, because the
fact that young black males are shot dead, armed or unarmed, week after week, by
white cops, or at times black cops in the US is not a human right problem.
The song has changed a little bit after the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, but has the
music changed at all? It still has the sound of bullets being shot.
Speaking of music this opera is
fascinating. John Adams is becoming a very rich composer who can shift from
extremely hard hammering short sequences of notes repeated for minutes and
minutes, to very melodious at time sweet and nearly romantic music, or to some
fluid aerial light nearly psychedelic sequences. The singing can vary from “Sprechgesang and Sprechstimme”
to melodious singing and to extremely rapid and rhythmic utterances that become
even difficult to follow. The use of repetitions is extremely important to
emphasize some words, phrases and passages. Personally I do not like the German
words I just used since that kind of musical diction between speaking and
singing was vastly used by Bach and many others as recitative. We seem to
forget it is Mozart and Haendel who made these recitatives musically equal to
the arias and duets, getting the opera out of the quasi-operas of Purcell in
which the operatic parts were only operatic episodes between the acts and
scenes of a play. On the French soil Molière used that structure with
Charpentier for His “Le Malade Imaginaire” whereas Thomas Corneille used his brother
Puerre Corneille’s tragedy Médée to produce an opera in which there are long
sections of recitative in the style of Bach’s Passions.
Nevertheless
John Adams uses this recitative tone or technique (note it has always been
present in jazz and it is the root of rap and hip hop oratorical styles) a lot
and can change the dramatic color vastly from one piece to the next, even to
the point of having a quasi-crazy tarantella with the British Dancing Girl. She
is on the fast and even very fast trance rhythm of the polyrhythmic music of
the African Americans who have kept their African traditions. Have you ever
danced on that fast rhythm you find in all African American soul music? You
should try one day and you will see that you can reach a trace without any rum.
The British dancing girl should be Jamaican.
One major
opera of this century, or the end of the previous one, by one composer who is
ahead of his time because he can plunge his roots into the oldest traditions
and associate them to subjects that are immediately in the news of this modern
world of ours. He probably reaches some kind of perennial inspiration that
transcends borders and decades.
Dr Jacques
COULARDEAU
# posted by Dr. Jacques COULARDEAU @ 4:37 PM
0 comments
MARC-ANTOINE
CJHARPENTIER – UN AUTOMNE A VERSAILLES – 2004
Ce « documentaire » de ARTE et Mezzo pour le tricentenaire de la
mort de Charpentier est à la fois un bijou et avec cependant quelque peu moins
de carats que l’on aurait pu attendre. Heureusement que le commentaire fade et
pauvre en mots de Catherine Cessac est largement compensé par les commentaires
inspirés et très sensibles de Hervé Niquet, Jordi Savall et Christophe Rousset
qui ont trouvé souvent les mots justes pour évoquer une musique que nous
redécouvrons après trois siècles d’absence.
Les images de Versailles sont trop souvent fugaces et extrêmement
partielles. Elles ne donnent pas la magie du château et des jardins, ni même de
la cour d’entrée qui apparaît petite et maigrichonne. L’Opéra Royal n’était pas
encore en 2003 dans sa gloire restaurée mais la plupart des lieux sont donnés
par petits bouts et par miettes. Dommage.
L’évocation de la dictature musicale et artistique de Lully est juste même
si pas suffisamment appuyée. Ce fut un homme étroit de goût et borné de style,
un esprit chagrin à l’ouverture tellement étroite qu’il en était une impasse,
un cul de sac qui a laissé derrière lui beaucoup plus de créativité bloquée que
de réelle innovation durable. Il faudra le dépasser dès sa mort et la musique
française a pris plutôt du retard qu’une longueur d’avance avec lui.
Heureusement que Charpentier le banni a laissé derrière lui des milliers de
pages inoubliables et qui pourtant ont été oubliées car elles étaient une
avant-garde et la génération suivante sera toute à sa propre créativité plutôt
qu’à l’évocation et la célébration de l’avant-gardiste qui n’eut jamais le
soutien du roi ni la reconnaissance de Versailles.
Marc-Antoine Charpentier était un honnête homme au sens de son temps,
humble et droit comme une âme ne manquant jamais son devoir de faire le bien.
Il était un homme de compassion qui savait honorer et chanter la souffrance et
la douleur, et en premier lieu celles de l’homme de foi et de l’homme de principes.
Et en même temps il est capable d’évoquer la joie et l’intensité du feu moral
et vital de l’homme fidèle à son idéal de beauté et de bonté. C’est que sa foi
est sincère et profonde et que pour lui la mort qu’il célèbre sans cesse reste
la cible et la destination de toute vie bien remplie. Et son épitaphe résonne
dans nos oreilles comme une grande vérité : « Comme en naissant je
n’ai rien apporté, en mourant je n’ai rien emporté. »
S’il n’a rien apporté par sa naissance, par sa musique il nous a submergé
de monceaux de richesses.
Médée, qui s’ouvre avec un long prologue à la gloire du roi non mentionné
aucune part, est dans les mains d’Hervé Niquet un beau conte d’une magicienne
de la passion qui devient tragique et probablement surhumaine pour ne pas dire
divine quand elle est amenée à transformer son amour vital en un jugement
final, mortel, dernier et sans la moindre pitié pour ce Jason qui la trahit. Il
s’agit alors de châtier le parjure et surtout pas de venger l’injure. Châtier
l’homme sans parole par la souffrance du vivant qu’il est par la mort de ses
propres enfants et de l’objet de son désir abject et de son ambition
d’arriviste qui a oublié que seule l’honnêteté au sens de Racine est le garant
du succès.
Mais plus encore Jordi Savall fait de la Missa Assumpta est Maria une œuvre
majeure capable de se comparer sans pâlir aux plus grandes œuvres de Bach et de
Haendel. Je retiendrai surtout le Kyrie qui est poignant de foi et de
souffrance. Le corps torturé du Christ est ici évoqué et invoqué par la musique
et de plus enchanté et inspiré de la résurrection et du salut que seule la mort
dans la douleur peut ambitionner de conquérir.
Charpentier est dans l’avant-garde d’une synthèse entre le jansénisme plus
ou moins interdit et la religion de gloire et de lumière des Bossuet et autres
grands de l’église gallicane, tout en étant à l’avant-garde de la musique qui
va triompher en Europe et dans le monde. Il y a en lui les flammes et les
émotions qui surgissent dans la musique des Bach de son époque et de juste
après-lui, qui jaillissent avec Haendel et l’école de Mannheim, y compris bien
sûr Mozart, et qui mène tout droit à la puissance musicale d’un John Adams
trois siècles plus tard.
C’est alors que l’on peut entendre le Gloria de cette messe, un Gloria qui
s’élève si haut que le vent cosmique lui-même suspend son vol pour laisser
cette gloire établir son éternité en communion avec l’espoir d’arrêter le temps
par la mort des horloges de la vie, par l’embrassade de l’oméga de la fin qui
trouve sa force atemporelle justement dans la temporalité de l’alpha du commencement.
Et il prétend ne rien avoir apporté ? L’humilité là le trahit. Et je
ne serai pas comme Catherine Cessac « ébloui par ce génie
multiforme » parce que cette expression ne veut rien dire et pourrait
s’appliquer à des dizaines de grands créateurs et de scientifiques. Je suis
fasciné par tout ce que je viens justement d’expliquer et d’expliciter.
Heureusement que les musiciens sont capables de nous donner toutes ces
richesses en nous les faisant ressentir au plus profond sous la seule forme
digne de Charpentier, les émotions de l’âme et de l’esprit, du cœur et de la
vie.
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU
# posted by Dr. Jacques COULARDEAU @ 4:50 AM
0 comments
HOMELAND – SERIES
– SEASONS 1-3
The action of the series is
extremely dense and as such the series is interesting, entertaining,
suspenseful. But it takes more than simple action to make a good series.
The first problem it envisages is
the fact that a US soldier
captured in Iraq or Afghanistan,
kept prisoner for eight years and liberated as some kind of collateral incident
of one particular raid on a Taliban or jihadist post, goes through debriefing and
even lie-detecting without a hitch though he has been turned during captivity. Yet
one CIA agent is suspicious but she cannot come to anything conclusive.
The whole story turns around the
fact that this marine was turned or broken by his captors. The way they did it,
and we learn right at the end it was decided by Iranian people directly under
control of the security boss in Iran,
is original and at the same time standard. First torture knowing that all the
man says during the first seven or eight days is worth nothing because a marine
is trained to resist torture for seven to eight days. Then he can say
everything he knows, after eight days, because he knows that by then everything
has had time to change or be changed. In other words torturing well trained
elite fighters is useless since they will be speaking freely and the truth only
the truth but after eight days during which all they had told was lies and
prepared inventions in order to let their side change what has to be changed.
The second element is that after
this torture that can only last a short time, you have to get the chap into
total absolute isolation with rare moments of contact with the outside world
and under perfect guidance. The prisoner will little by little get out of his
mind and to keep some sanity he will turn to a god or some kind of spiritual or
religious belief. That’s when the Stockholm Syndrome can hit hard on the
prisoner. In that total loss of contact, perspective and connections with the
world if some kindness is proposed by one of the captors, if possible one that
has played a role in the torturing but not the direct torturing part, rather
the commanding part in the torture, then the prisoner will become grateful and
if this kindness goes on and increases the prisoner will naturally turn. His religious
need will lead him to adopting the religion of his captors. In this case the
prisoner is entrusted with teaching English to the son of the leading figure
among the captors and this brings the prisoner into an emotional situation
where he falls in love with the child, the young boy. At this moment the
prisoner has become a member of a situation that makes him part of the captors’
world. The torture broke him and the kindness turned him.
It is then a US drone that kills
dozens of children in a school, and among these children the boy whose
education our prisoner had been entrusted with, that completes the turning of
the man. Then the rest is detail. He becomes the willing live suicidal bomber
that will kill those who are responsible for the bombing of the school, and
that is the US
Vice-President and his security outfit or team if you prefer.
The third element here is that
this turning cannot be reversed but it can at first be blocked by small
elements that come from his previous life, and in his case his wife and his
children, particularly his daughter. You can turn a man but you cannot erase
his past. You can block that past and train him so that he can go through any
debriefing and any lie-detecting, but you cannot delete his past, and you must
not because this past is what is going to make him able to go back to his
society to fulfill his mission there. But this past contains emotions that are
revived for some of them by his coming back to his previous life and that can
block the resolve and mission of the turned prisoner. The film gives two cases
and the same element, attachment to previous wife and children, is the blocking
element, the emotion to which the two people go back to and that can become the
stumbling stone. Turning a man is never complete because it is impossible. That’s
what the series tells us.
It goes, in the last episodes of
the third season, as far as showing the turned prisoner can first be turned all
over again and back to what he used to be, a Marine, and then the mission he
had been entrusted with when he was turned the first time can become the very
incentive for fulfilling at any cost the mission he has been entrusted with
when he was turned back to his initial Marine format, and the intermediary turning
of the man by his captors will become the force that will motivate his
vengeance or vengeful power which will lead him to fulfilling the second
mission: he will eradicate those who turned him the first time out vengeance.
The second theme of the series is
very debatable. To pretend that the present change in Iran is the result of a CIA opposition that
liquidated the historical main security leader in Iran and had him replaced by a CIA
undercover agent is simply absurd. This undercover CIA agent was the chief of
security under the Shah and then became the second man in command of the
security system under the ayatollahs. In other words he is a turn-coat. To
pretend that he has embezzled great sums from his own security operations and
hence from the regime in Iran
is just foolish. It takes an embezzler to recognize another. That’s the type of
tactics the CIA uses and they consider everyone does the same. Since the CIA
leads the people they want to buy to embezzling money through their
double-agent situation, they think it is natural for everyone to dream and
desire to be an embezzler. What’s more to think that the evolution of Iran is nothing
but secret service corruption and penetration and infiltration from the CIA is
mental simplicity. The evolution of a country in any direction can only come
from the people themselves if it is to be long lasting and serious. We seem to
forget Hitler and Mussolini were elected. At that level the ideology of the Mossad
(this series is adapted from an Israeli series) is so obvious that we wonder if
the series is not financed by that Mossad.
The final remark I will make is
that the CIA is using, at times at top level, people who are psychologically
deranged or non-functional. Here the main agent in these “adventures” is a
woman and she is bipolar, hence highly sensitive to any withdrawal from her
drugs and she should not even be sent in hostile fields since she could be
tortured by just being cut off from her drugs. Such “motivations” or “abilities,”
I mean the abilities that are developed in such psychologically deficient
situations, can be useful for some extreme situations but they are extremely
dangerous in the long run because the person cannot be trusted.
And she sure cannot be trusted,
so much that she can easily be manipulated including by the CIA in order to fulfill
objectives she is not even conscious or aware of. This vision of humanity (man
is nothing but a manipulated manipulating manipulator) is a denial of humanity
itself. We can see what it may lead to with ISIS or Ukraine. In the first case Iran finds it easy to laugh at the West who actually
financed the various movements that now have turned out to be ISIS.
In the same case it does not take much from Putin to manipulate Ukraine back to
some kind of a compromise after the Ukrainians (including the remnants of the
nazi units that had managed to survive in the West as political refugees from
the USSR and had come back to be the agents of the West, and particularly the
European Community, after the fall of the USSR) had been manipulated into ousting
the properly elected President during the Sochi Olympic Games.
If this world has any future it
will only come from consensual properly expressed wills and desires of the mass
of the people of every single and all countries in the world. Scotland is there
to prove the point: in spite of all public opinion polls manipulated by the
media to predict such a close result that they could not even tell which side
dominated, the winning margin of NO was so wide that there cannot be any kind
of doubt.
This series is typical of the new
Cold War ideology that is developing in the West confronted to the fact that
this West has lost the leading position in the world and the future is in the
hands of the BRICS and their allies or partners. Who – apart from me and Ivan
Eve, THE INDIAN OCEAN THE
MARE NOSTRUM OF HUMANITY [Kindle Edition] –
could have said four or five years ago that Sri Lanka was going to be the
maritime hub in the Indian Ocean and what’s more the security hub in this
Indian Ocean. What this means is not clear as for the security hub, so far, but
it is crystal clear as for the maritime hub with the latest announcement about
the development of Colombo’s
harbor.
This Cold War flavor is
regrettable because the series is fascinating at many levels.
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU
# posted by Dr. Jacques COULARDEAU @ 8:16 AM
0 comments