it's personal discussion
Journals Archived
>
I've Calculated the Number of the Beast (ᶤᵗ ᶤˢ ᶰᵃᵖᵒˡᵉᵒᶰ)
date
newest »
newest »
"Then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and of one mind. Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility, value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of others."
Philipians 2:2-3
Dear Hamilton Fans, What have you been doing?
Okay guys, pardon my generalizations, I just need to get this out of my head because otherwise I won't calm down. I see there may be irony or even hypocrisy in this piece but I'm saying what I have to say.
I've felt like this for a while, to be honest, but it was only when I found an article in this week's New York Times magazine called "The CEO of Hamilton inc" that this idea really took root.
Basically, every time I watch or read something about the growing sensation of Hamilton, I start getting ticked off. By no means am I angry at Hamilton in of itself. It deserves all its praise and maybe more.
Despite this, Ladies and Gentlemen, I implore you to turn your eyes away just one moment from the ubiquitous black-and-gold logo which may dominate your computer screen, hold center-stage on your phone, or sit in your lap and behold a nineteenth-century Russia of chandeliers, borscht, and a cast of twenty actors plus and eight-piece band making their respective paths across a large room.
In the words of author Steven Surkin "This is Tolstoy, yes, and Tolstoy no." In my own, this is Natasha, Pierre and the Great Comet of 1812, a period but equally modern show that takes the idea of 1812 Moscow out of a paragraph in a textbook and right before your eyes with a mix of classical, electronic, musical theater, and various other styles performed by a multiracial cast and small band.
[Amelia Workman, Lucas Steele, Amber Gray, Phillipa Soo, Gelsey Bell, and Dave Malloy in the original production]
What, pray tell, does this strange and - in comparison with Hamilton - obscure show have to do with Hamilton? To start, both shows sound awfully strange on paper. A hip hop/jazz/R&B show telling the story of one of our most overlooked founding fathers? A slice of War and Peace volume II transformed into a dinner-theater pop opera?
It seems highly likely that both Lin-Manuel Miranda and Dave Malloy, Natasha, Pierre, and the Great Comet of 1812's creator, experienced doubts that their stories would ever hit the stage. In one article whose title I fail to remember due to its discovery being online via an image search, Dave Malloy explicitly said that Great Comet was merely an idea floating around his head while he read War and Peace on a cruise ship, playing piano.
That was, until he received a commission from the Ars Nova theater and he brought up the idea, thinking it would be turned down. Instead, they nurtured it to make it a show praised by numerous critics and even Stephen Schwartz, composer of Wicked.
Not only that, Great Comet's main connection to Hamilton is that it served as a launch for the 22-year-old recent Julliard graduate who would become Hamilton's leading lady: Phillipa Soo.
[Phillipa Soo during her Great Comet days and on its billboard in times square, Phillipa Soo in Great Comet.]
And here lies the epicenter of my rage, an exaggerated term, but the shortest I can find. Basically, no one knew who Phillipa Soo was until her "star-born performance" as Natasha in a show Which Lin-Manuel Miranda decided to see, thus bringing her into what would become the Hamilton cast. However, at the present, Hamilton is all we see when a search of her name is entered into google.
The entire cast of Hamilton could have been born out of their mothers' wombs as cast members of Hamilton and the general public would be none the wiser, save the few of us who will look up once in a while and go "What about In The Heights?""What about Rent?"
[Front row (left to right): Shaina Taub, Brittain Ashford, Krysta Rodriguez, Phillipa Soo, Zachary Levi, David Abeles, Nick Choski, Lauren Zakrin]
And me:
"What about Natasha, Pierre and the Great Comet of 1812?"
Again, I do love Hamilton, but couldn't we shed a little spotlight on an equally amazing and unique show which happens to also feature a historical setting, literary inspiration, a cast who sometimes doesn't look the way the characters originally were, a similarly laughable but remarkably well-executed premise, and most of all, stunning and catchy numbers from a range of musical styles which flow beautifully from one to the other?
[Another look at Great Comet's set]
Needless to say, I harbor no delusions about the broader cultural appeal of Hamilton. It's about America. It's on Boradway. It was written by an actor/composer with one Tony-award-winning much more mainstream show already under his belt rather than Dave Malloy, who moved from Berkeley, California only a few years before writing Great Comet and leans much more to the experimental end of things. And Hamilton was likely intended for much broader an audience than a small, intimate show like Great Comet. Hamilton has seven hundred pages and fifty-some years of exhilirating and heartbreaking source material to cover. Great Comet only has seventy-some and a storyline that takes only a week to unfold, with almost half as many songs as Hamilton, with less room for the "feels" my sister and I encountered listening to numbers like "Hurricane," It's Quiet Uptown," "Dear Theodosia" and "Who Lives, who dies, who tells your story."
[Alex Lacamoire with Phillipa Soo after a Great Comet show]
In addition, Hamilton tells a classic "Hero's Journey" story, only with less distinct heroes and villains. (When asked by the New York Times book review who his favorite villains were, Miranda said he "[did not] believe in villains"). Hamilton's story is one of real historical figures we mostly know or think we know, rather than Great Comet's fictional ones simply "caught in the wave of history" as Naploeon's troops move closer and closer to their city. Nevertheless, they have an equally compelling tale of their own which may cross the boundaries of time, place, class, and culture even more so than the distinctly American Hamilton.
Great Comet's storyline is one of Natasha, a naive young girl with a fiance at war entering Moscow society only to be seduced, lose her reputation, and barely be saved from abduction by the courage and sisterly love of her orphan cousin Sonya (who gives most of the show's "feels" in her act two ballad "Sonya Alone").
[Phillipa Soo and Brittain Ashford]
Like many heroines in contemporary young adult literature, Natasha falls for the "sexy bad boy" type. Unlike in most contemporary literature, said 'sexy bad boy' is married and the elopement plans are all for his own amusement, despite her genuine love for him. Thus, Natasha's tale is one of an mistake in youth, the kind many make to a lesser degree, and she shouldn't have received all the slut-shaming she gets once the elopement plans leak. Like many a character who has come unknowingly into such a situation, Natasha needs love, forgiveness, and a way to prove she is more than a girl to be gossiped about and shamed.
Such a heroine may be condemned as stupid, sexist, or both, but Great Comet is by no means sexist, a term which would doubtlessly prove its inferiority to Hamilton.
The cast is equal parts male and female. The director, MacArthur-genius-grant-winning set designer, and costume designer are female, while said roles in Hamilton are filled by men. Former cast members Soo and Shaina Taub (There's a House, Old Hats) as well as Brittain Ashford who continues her role for this fall's Broadway production are most definitely feminists.
Despite the fate and actions of Natasha, it is not a man who really saves her reputation. Though only Pierre can comfort her in the failed elopement's aftermath due to Sonya's involvement in the stopping of the elopement, it was really Sonya who saved Natasha from Anatole rather than any of the men in her life.
Sure, not all the characters are badass fighters, but who was in Nineteenth-century Russia? Who, in an era of blatant sexism, anti-semitism, and racism, would be a model of justice by modern standards? Of course, with a bit of cerebration, we would agree that few were or could be, in either Hamilton or Great Comet.
Though I do, in this piece, argue for people to pay more attention to Great Comet, it cannot be and was not designed to be exactly like Hamilton in its image or management. Both certainly have their similarities and must carry misleading labels ("hip-hop musical" and "electropop opera" are hardly broad enough terms to describe the wide varieties of styles in Hamilton and Great Comet), but they will each carry their own brand of storytelling as long as they run.
For Hamilton, it is about redefining our past and tying it to our present with songs that scream "Be here." "Be Now" "Who lives, who dies, who tells your story?" For Natasha, Pierre and the Great Comet of 1812 it's about rich and evocative but also quirky sung dialogue between intimate small-group numbers using ensembles only when necessary to explore the man facets of human nature. Thus, I would not imagine Great Comet with the commercialized sort of brand Hamilton has. I doubt Dave Malloy or the indie singer-songwriters who have been part of the Great Comet from the beginning would want this from their show nor is it plausible with this kind of story from here and now. It is not a show that will define "Here and Now," it's almost timeless.
Anyhow, I digress. All I ask of you guys is to think of Phillipa Soo as not only Eliza, but Natasha too, and consider that in regards to other Hamilton cast members (I love In the Heights too and would love to see more people talking about it not just in terms of Hamilton). In regards to Great Comet, Natasha Pierre and the Great Comet of 1812, think about a whole nother show, maybe with 23-year-old Phillipa Soo in a fur-edged pelisse asking "Everyone lives, no one dies, but who will tell my story?" And though a moderately hyped Broadway cast - headed by Josh Groban and Denee Benton from the Book of Mormon national tour - is making its way through the theater news, a Phillipa Soo Great Comet is something we may not see again except immortalized in the two-disc cast recording found Here. Even if you think it's not your thing, I hated rap and still listened to Hamilton and, though mainstream hip-hop will never be my thing - I definitely like it, so check it out :)
Watch this to get an idea of what I'm talking about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lvm_...
There's something really warm and fuzzy about The Great Comet of 1812 I can't get from Hamilton. It's just so big. So famous. It's like untouchable.
Conversing with ideas personifiedMe: So why are we here?
Science: because the universe expanded from an infinitely dense point and then the stars formed and the solar system formed and then there was the big bang and that made earth and earth was somehow just the right size to have an atmosphere and support life.
Me: So what made it that the big bang happened when it did with what it did so that we got a little rocky planet just perfect in every single way to hold life and not get totally pissed with us for screwing with it and murder us?
Science: Well, you shouldn't be personifying an inanimate object like a planet and in regards to the rest of your question, it just happens I guess.
Religion: Well, what about God?
Science: How do you explain 'God?"
Religion: Actually it's perfectly rational as an answer to her question. Your explanation has its uses, but there are holes in it.
Science: And so are there in yours.
Religion: But you fill the holes in mine and I fill the holes in yours.
Science: but what about the whole 'world created in six days' thing?
Me: It could be allegory. What are days if God lives forever?
In sixth grade, a classmate told me that if it weren't for Christianity, we'd have flying cars because of how the Church persecuted scientists in the renaissance-ish. What it really comes down to is the fact that the people within the church were abusing the power given to them by the lack of separation between Church and state which does not turn the state into a church but the Church into a state, political manipulation and all.
I guess it's time I "shared my faith story." It's not very interesting though.Basically, I was nine and sitting in church service when basically something just hit me that I had to try not to sin in order to go to Heaven and then I started taking church seriously, but I have a long way to go. I get God, as you an see from the above thing, but the Resurrection always strikes me as distant. The main thing that keeps me is that I do sort of believe, as in, I am afraid of not making it into Heaven, and also when I go to church, the community is so miraculous it's hard to believe it's not real.
I'm an agnostic but I know lots of people in the catholic community because my mom's a teacher at a formerly catholic school.
I don't think that's actually religious people who do that. Mainly, it seems they're abusing their religious freedom as an excuse for them not to change their minds.
Sonya ~*Why Do We Build The Wall?*~ Schuyler wrote: "I don't think that's actually religious people who do that. Mainly, it seems they're abusing their religious freedom as an excuse for them not to change their minds."Yes, exactly! I think God can change His mind, or that people can warp His word into something that no longer means love.
I honestly don't think God has a human gender classification. I mean, God is everywhere and knows the future and what we're thinking and that is beyond human capability and a lot of parts of God seem to suggest that God doesn't really have a gender, since all people are made in God's image. I personally think that people individually responsible for their own morals, no matter what is legal.
The Russian Revolution is not black-and-white history. Part one.
(it's gray, if you can't tell)
How many of you love to read history books? How many of you would rather read a novel or watch a movie about it? Doing so can enhance your memory, but the question often arises when looking at a work of fiction: how much of this is true? Of course, there are ones that get the history right, but when you look at the last days of Imperial Russia, that is most often not the case.
The term Imperial Russia refers to Russia, and sometimes surrounding territories, under the reign of an all-powerful emperor - or tsar - and whomever he decides to trust. This kind of regime was used in Russia from its beginnings as a small group of principalities recently freed from Mongol rule up to the revolution of 1917, in which the last emperor, Nicholas II, left power.
Imperial Russia in its final days is commonly portrayed in books and films, notably the 1997 animated film Anastasia as a glamourous land of ballet and grand palaces, while the 1917 revolution, which overthrew the tsar, simply came to ruin everyone’s lives.
In reality, the Russian Revolution was caused by a great number of complex factors often overlooked by novels and films, some of which include discrimination, a growing distrust of the imperial system, and poor economic conditions for average people.
1. Discrimination was a huge problem, something often overlooked by romanticists.
First of all, levels of anti-Semitism in Nicholas II’s Imperial Russia were high. Jews were banned from owning land or farmland, forced to live only in the western area of the empire: Pale of Settlement. Despite having higher education levels than others, laws limiting their job opportunities led many families (think Fiddler on the Roof) to emigrate between 1894 and 1924.
In attacks called pogroms, Jews and their property were attacked, and law enforcement did nothing, sometimes initiating the attacks. One excuse - a common one throughout history - was the idea that Jews crucified Jesus, which is true, but Jesus and early followers were also ethnic Jews, so this was not an issue of race (this discrimination likely stemmed from the fact that the Orthodox church felt threatened by other religious groups after the fall of Constantinople and feared losing power). The consequence of this was discrimination, however, was that many ostracized Jews became part of revolutionary circles.
Sexism is similarly overlooked. In early 20th century Russia, a woman could not obtain passports without her husband’s permission, nor could he own property. A man’s testimony outweighed a woman’s in trial, corrupting justice.
Only a boy could be tsar after Emperor Paul’s accession in 1797. (Thus, the people going after Anastasia in various Anastasia adaptations would have had a lot less initiative, considering that she’d be a traumatized seventeen or eighteen-year-old girl who couldn’t inherit the throne and certainly couldn’t lead an army).
Revolutionary ideas appealed to some women because the ideology of many revolutionaries included equality between the sexes as well as classes. Writer Aleksandra Kollontay, and - in earlier periods Vera Figner, Sofia Peroskaya, and Vera Zasulich - were active in revolutionary circles in ways they couldn’t be in other parts of society. Thus, though it’s not a hugely important factor, discrimination is an overlooked factor in the revolution and the world of Nicholas II’s Russia.
2. People stopped trusting the imperial system at the end of an era, and the mistakes of the imperial system served as major catalysts.Bloody Sunday 1905, was one such catalyst. A peaceful protest in which a group of workers led by a respected priest went to the winter palace to petition the emperor, singing “God Save the Tsar,” the petitioners called for an eight-hour workday and a wage of at least one ruble (about 50 cents) per day. The leader of the protest was a priest who respected the tsar and believed he - unlike the rest of the government and such - was a good, semi-divine being who would grant their wishes. However, the tsar not at the winter palace that day, having left city, in fear of riots, and soldiers fired on protesters. 500+ were dead, thousands wounded.
In short, Bloody Sunday 1905 was a giant mass shooting of innocent, obviously unarmed protestors, many of them women and children. After the protest, the priest Father Gapon wrote “The innocent blood of workers, their wives, and children lies between thee, oh soul destroyer, and the Russian people.” Gapon now uses a lowercase t, rather than a capital letter which would indicate the emperor’s divine status. Now, many average Russians now viewed Nicholas as “bloody Nicholas” or “Nicholas the hangman,” despite tsar having no role in shooting, and that he wasn’t a semi-divine guardian meant to protect them.
Grigori Rasputin - most likely unwittingly - also played a role in the declining respect for the emperor and family. In 1904, the emperor’s wife finally gave birth to a son who could inherit the throne, but he suffered from Hemophilia, a blood disorder that prevented his blood from clotting in anything bigger than a minor cut or scrape. Grigori Rasputin was a semi-literate peasant and supposed healer who was able to calm the heir’s attacks.
However, the Imperial family felt need to protect semi-divine image and pretended nothing was wrong, though they spent little time with the people because of their son’s illness. However, the people did not understand why Rasputin visited palace, and his presence led to crude rumors about the already mistrusted German empress Alexandra, especially at war with Germany, and even some contemporary literature portrays them as lovers (Tsarina for one])
The oblivious Empress believed God was speaking through him, during war relied on him for political advice while husband was away led to firing of good ministers who didn’t like Rasputin and hiring of incompetent ones who did. For one, prime minister Peter Stolypin (1906-1911) made reforms for peasants not on Rasputin’s side, leading to Alexandra’s opposition.
After his assassination, Stolypin was replaced by a more conservative supporter of Rasputin commonly called inept whose policies led to further rioting. The issue of Rasputin also split the royal family between those who supported and those who did not, and Nicholas was too weak-willed and busy to reject what helped his son.
In conclusion, the relationship between tsar and people was turbulent at the end of an era and a major factor in the revolution
→→→Iᖴ YOᑌ ᔕTᗩᑎᗪ ᖴOᖇ ᑎOTᕼIᑎG, ᗯᕼᗩT'ᒪᒪ YOᑌ ᖴᗩᒪᒪ ᖴOᖇ?━━━━
I take this quote to heart in my fifth journal.
This started out as my journal for indecision. It turns out, I've corrupted my formerly emo journal with fangirling so I'm repurposing this one to talk about the issues that really are personal. Disagree rationally and politely, but feel free to do so.