Other Desert Cities

Other Desert Cities, the 2011 comedy/drama by Jon Robin Baitz, feels familiar. Actually, for audience members of a certain age it might initially feel dated. It isn’t. A superficial view of the play might also lead one to conclude it is fairly superficial. It isn’t that either. Like some of the swimming pools in desert enclaves of privilege like Palm Springs, it is surprisingly deep.

It is 2004. For the first time in several years, the members of the Wyeth family have come together to celebrate Christmas in the parents’ Palm Springs home. The home is one of those syntheses of luxurious taste and mid-century modern aesthetic that exist nowhere quite as they do in Palm Springs. The home speaks volumes about Lyman and Polly Wyeth. They are tasteful, private, conservative and rich.

Lyman was a film actor, though never a star, who became active in conservative California politics. Polly was a screen writer who gave up her career, along with her Jewish roots and Texas accent, to become a true believer in Reagan-era conservatism and, ultimately, the wife of an ambassador. The Wyeths were friends with the Bloomingdales and the Annenbergs and, of course, Ron & Nancy. Now they have retired to the desert for tennis, cocktails, dinners at the country club and shopping on Palm Canyon Drive.

Silda, Polly’s sister and former writing partner is staying with them. She is burned-out, broke, and fresh from her most recent stint in rehab. Polly and Lyman’s youngest son Trip, a successful, if unhappy, television producer has joined them for the holiday as has their daughter Brooke.Brooke is a writer who abandoned California for the East Coast. Her first novel was well received when it was published six years earlier. Since then she has struggled with depression and writer’s block and has recently ended a failed marriage. Her depression was severe enough to require hospitalization. Since retiring from public life, worrying about Brooke has become Lyman and Polly’s primary focus.

Playwright Jon Robin Baitz

Brooke has brought copies of her recently completed book. Sold to a major publisher, it is scheduled for release in a few months. Excerpts are to appear in a prestigious national magazine in a few weeks. Rather than a novel, however, we learn this book is a memoir of Brooke’s life growing up as a Wyeth and it focuses on some tragic events in the family’s past. Brooke found catharsis in writing the book and it may be the best thing she’s ever written but she fears Lyman and Polly will prefer this particular wound not be reopened. The prospect of revealing, and being forced to publicly relive the darkest moment of their family’s history threatens to shred the already fragile fabric of the family’s relationship. Let the games begin!

What seems familiar, and superficially dated, about the play is the theme of children, especially children of privilege, rebelling against the politics and values of their parents. I am old enough to remember the late 1960’s and came of age in the 1970’s. Children of the counterculture in conflict with conservative parents over the war in Vietnam and, by extension, all the parents’ “middle-class” values was a common theme in the popular culture of the 1970’s. Given the lux, mid-century set, were it not for the Reagan and Bush references in the text it would be easy to imagine the children and parents arguing about the morality of a war in the jungle rather than a war in the desert.

Ultimately we realize these debates are not the substance of the play. Where we find depth is in exploring the nature of a family’s story. The events detailed in Brooke’s memoir are the shared story of the entire Wyeth family. Each having their own perspective, it is a given that they did not experience the tragic events what took place some 30 years earlier in the same way. Trip was a child. He barely remembers the events themselves but he grew up in the shadow of their aftermath. Brooke’s life was devastated in ways from which she has not yet recovered. Lyman and Polly’s lives were devastated as well but they faced those events as adults with broader commitments, not least the responsibility for Brooke and Trip.

The common chronology of events is a story that is different for each of them. But whose story is it to tell? And how is that decision altered when we learn that point-of-view is not the only variable. Lyman, Polly and Silda posses details of the story unknown to Brooke and Trip. There are secrets and the people keeping them are doing so for reasons of their own. Brooke may have chosen to write the story in the first person but her omniscience is literary form; not reality.

The play was originally titled Love and Mercy, the title of Brooke’s memoir. The final title, Other Desert Cities is a reference to a highway sign one sees on I-10 driving from Los Angeles toward Palm Springs. One can take the road to Palm Springs or go another direction toward the “Other Desert Cities”. From Brooke Wyeth’s point of view those cities are someplace else. Whether they are truly different, however, she cannot know.

The play premiered at Lincoln Center in January 2011 and moved to Broadway in November of that year. It was a finalist for the 2012 Pulitzer Prize for Drama.

Advertisements

Throw Back Thursday – 1957

With my sister, Judi
West Frankfort, Illinois
May 1957

I appear to be distracted by something. Or, perhaps I was just practicing the ‘aloof-in-the-face-of-the-paparazzi’ attitude that I still hope may come in handy some day. The jaunty cap shows my sense of style was far ahead of its time; envisioning hip-hop fashions still more than half-century away.

It is impressive that I could stand with such nonchalance on the bumper of a car at age 16 months. I don’t know much about early childhood development but, to my impartial eye, there is something prodigy-like in that.

This would have been a couple of months before Judi’s 6th birthday. The saucy little minx always knew how to pull the focus in a photograph. She was clearly loving the effect of her Toni Home Perm.

Rant Revisited

Last night Arizona Governor Jan Brewer vetoed AZ SB 1062.

Supporters of SB 1062 claimed it defended religious freedom by allowing business people to “live their faith” by refusing service to people of whom they disapproved based on their sincerely held religious beliefs. Opponents claimed it codified religion into law and that it’s only purpose was to provide a shield against civil suits to those who wished to “live their hate” by discriminating against LGBT people.

Nationwide, the consensus was that the law was blatantly discriminatory. There was a real fear that people would refuse to visit Arizona and that businesses would refuse to do business in Arizona. Within the state, opposition included an unlikely coalition of Civil Rights groups, LGBT activists, leaders of the business community, economic development groups, the tourism industry and the Arizona Chamber of Commerce. Even Tea Party sycophants like U.S. Senator Jeff Flake and several State Senators who voted for the bill urged the Governor to veto. Most surprising of all, some members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints were calling for a veto. Apparently the Mormons worried the law was not focused narrowly enough on the LGBT community and feared some Arizona fundamentalists would “live their faith” by discriminating against Mormons. The Mormons are protected by the (federal) Civil Rights Act but their concerns were not totally unfounded. Arizona has a long and, in some circles, proud history of ignoring federal law governing voting rights so the idea we’d ignore the laws governing civil right isn’t really that much of a leap of imagination.

AZ Governor Brewer

I thank Governor Jan for doing the right thing, albeit for the wrong reasons. In the world of real politik we must take our victories where we find them. Those of us who live, work, and shop in one of the three Arizona cities whose municipal civil rights ordinances include a ban on discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation can rest a little easier. In the rest of the State, of course, it is business as usual. People are free to ‘live their hate’ that same way they always have. Hang a sign in their store window that says; “No Queers”. There is nothing that prohibits that.

What ultimately offended some Arizona conservatives about SB 1062, and offending Arizona conservatives is the only way a law gets vetoed in AZ, is the limitations it placed on their freedom of thought; what Queen Elizabeth I referred to as ‘making windows into men’s souls”. The law said conservatives were free to discriminate based on their sincerely held religious beliefs. With the exception of the three cities with municipal ordinances, it has never been necessary for a bigot in Arizona to have “sincerely held religious beliefs” before. The hate alone has always been enough.

Dipping A Toe In The Stream of Consciousness

A couple of years ago I was running often. I enjoyed it. And I felt pretty good about myself for doing it. I’m not sure why I quit; something deeply neurotic and psychologically disturbed no doubt. In any event, it has been a while since I ran regularly so, as one would expect, I have added a few extra pounds to my, never-svelte-to-begin-with, frame. A recent visit to Puerto Vallarta reinforced this. There is nothing as effective as spending a week in a beach resort full of gay men to bring one’s physical imperfections into stark and glaring focus. Historically, negative feedback has been more likely to send me off on a quest to find the perfect pizza than to the gym but I am attempting to take a more enlightened approach this time.

I went to the gym five (count ’em!) times last week and have been trying to eat responsibly. The greatest evidence of my renewed commitment to health is the reintroduction of, gulp, oatmeal into my morning routine. I loathe oatmeal but I find it is less gag-making with the addition of some cinnamon and a dollop of all-natural, no-sugar-added applesauce.

To paraphrase a quote often misattributed to the Bible; if I act as if I like it, a liking for it will be given unto me’.  We’ll see.

* * * * * * *

Last weekend I went to a play downtown. The venue contains several performance spaces so there were two shows taking place at the same time. I went to see a play called Other Desert Cities. I will blog about it shortly. The other performance, and apparently the better attended, was of a production called Respect: A Musical Celebration of Women. I know nothing about it other than what is on the poster but it looks like it would be fun. It would definitely be fun if it were a sing-a-long….
……or karaoke…..
…..and they do allow cocktails in the theater.

I wonder if they have ‘rush tickets’.

I may be talking myself into it.

* * * * * * *

There has been a shift of my iPhone gaming habits. I play a number of games on my phone but, until recently, my favorite, and by ‘favorite’ I mean most time-consuming, was Bejeweled Blitz. Well move over BB and make way for Candy Crush Saga. I’d heard of this game but never looked at it. Then one day I got an email from a friend through Facebook asking his friends to send him lives. I’m a nice guy. He’s a friend in need. So I thought; what the heck! I’ll log in and figure out what I need to do to send him the gift of life. In two weeks since, countless hours have simply vanished. CC in Chandler AZ I hold you responsible for the monkey on my back. Playing on my generosity and eagerness to help a friend was like free heroine. Now I am hooked.

Does anyone still play Words with Friends?

I’m Due For A Rant

I let all the hysteria over the Grammy Awards weddings go by without blog comment. The Teavangelicals had their knickers in twist over the sight of, (horror of horrors) married couples on an awards show (dissonant organ chord) . I guess they feel the various offerings of “The Real Housewives of…” franchise don’t do enough to present the proper image of family values on television.

And I bit my tongue reading all the hand wringing over how the Grammys are no longer ‘family-friendly’.  I know how the Teavangelicals have been down wit da Hip-Hop since the days of Public Enemy and N.W.A so they have a right to feel betrayed. You go Tea-folk; FIGHT THE POWER!

Olympics Rings As Handcuffs?

The Olympics are over. There was much controversy before the Sochi Games because of the threats facing LGBT people in Russia. Some called for a boycott. The laws being passed in Russia are reminiscent of Germany’s 1935 Nuremberg laws which formed the legal framework for the Holocaust. And, with all due respect to Russians and those of Russian heritage who are more enlightened, Russia has a long history of bull-dozing stigmatized groups into mass graves. There have already been public figures quoted widely, and with precious little condemnation, saying LGBT people should be herded into ovens and burned alive. We should not sit silently and wait for a gay Babi Yar. As a gay man I am appalled by events in Russia. I’ll also admit I am frightened by how joyfully their message is being received by the Tea-folks in this country.

All that said, I’m glad there was no boycott of the Sochi Games. Bringing world media attention to bear in the hopes of bringing the Russians to a more civilized position is good but boycotting the Games would have hurt the athletes and the Olympic movement more than the Russians.  It is a righteous cause but boycott would have been the wrong strategy. I recall the US boycott of the 1980 Moscow Games because of the Russian (then “Soviet”) invasion of Afghanistan. That was a mistake. And the irony of the US hosting the Salt Lake City Games 20 years later, the year after the US invaded Afghanistan, should be lost on no one.

Speaking of Nuremberg, it will be an interesting week in Arizona. Wrapping themselves in the shroud of Christian love, our State Legislators passed, and sent to our fine Governor for signature, Senate Bill 1062 which would allow businesses to cite their religious beliefs as a defense in lawsuits brought by people who have been refused service. I didn’t even know businesses could have religious beliefs. I guess that was another part of the “Citizens United” ruling.

Thanks to Sassybear for sharing New Hampshire Freedom to Marry’s photo on Facebook

State law cannot trump federal law so owners of restaurants, hotels, theaters, etc. cannot cite their religious beliefs as defense in refusing to serve people of other “races, colors, religions or national origins”. Discrimination of that type is prohibited by the (Federal) Civil Rights Act of 1964. As much as the Arizona Tea-folk wish it were otherwise, SB 1062 will not allow them to refuse service to Hispanics. LGBT people, however, are not a protected class so anyone would be free to refuse service on that basis.

Supporters of the law love to cite poor beleaguered Christian, Joe-the-Baker, who is forced to sell cakes to perverts for their sodomite weddings even though the Baby Jesus appeared to him in a burning croissant and commanded there should be no cakes for queers. As much that the Tea-folk like to pretend it is, Joe the Baker is not the issue.

I am concerned that hotels can refuse me a room while still renting by the hour to every fundamentalist minister and Tea Party CEO taking a hooker out for a nooner. A banquet hall is free to refuse to allow a PFLAG dinner while cheerfully taking a deposit from Newt or Rush for the reception when they marry the 7th Miss ‘Til-Death-Do-Us-Part-du-Jour’. I am very concerned that a pharmacy can refuse to sell HIV or other medications because Jesus told them to disapprove of potential buyers. Most of all, I am profoundly offended by the unfairness that anyone can claim their religion tells them not to serve LGBT people but LGBT business owners cannot refuse to serve Teavangelicals because the Civil Rights Act protects them from discrimination…. just not us.

For those Arizonans disappointed because AZ SB 1062 will not allow them to refuse service to Hispanics, there is still hope. Second generation racist libertarian and Tea Party heartthrob wannabe, Rand Paul, was quoted recently as saying the Civil Rights Act prohibitions of discrimination in access to accommodations are unconstitutional. Apparently emboldened by the SCOTUS’s dismemberment of the Voting Rights Act, he’s touting his belief that every business should be free to choose their customers without government interference. That is the philosophy that underlies AZ SB 1062.

It will be interesting to see which pressure group our Governor Jan is most sensitive to. The Teavangelicals will be unhappy if she fails to sign. The business community is hoping for a veto fearing retaliation and loss of business in the State. Fiscal conservatives oppose the proposed law because of the staggering cost to the State’s taxpayers of defending the State against the undoubted court challenges to yet another of these ‘Nurenberg-lite’ Arizona laws. Unfortunately there is no such thing as a fiscally conservative member of the AZ GOP anymore so it is unlikely their input will matter much to Governor Jan.

In truth, it is hyperbole to compare SB 1062 to the Nuremburg Laws.  AZ SB 1062 is not the beginning of the Holocaust. It is, however, the beginning of Apartheid. That worked out well for the South Africans so I can see why some might think we should give it a go in the US of A.

Black and Blue and Pretty Dead, Too

In the 10th book in the series, Chicago Police Detective Paul Turner and his partner Buck Fenwick are struggling to survive a brutal heat wave when they are assigned to investigate the murder of a fellow Police Officer.

Officer Trent Belger was no one’s idea of a model officer but the case is a political hand grenade. First, Belger had testified against his long-time partner in a brutality case. The boys in blue are quick to respond when a fellow officer is injured or killed but they have no fondness for officers who break the code of silence. In this case, many of Belger’s brother officers are potential suspects. Not only can Turner & Fenwick expect little cooperation, they need to watch their backs.

The second reason the case requires swift resolution is because of the way Belger died. He was found in the basement of an abandoned train station, currently home to the Black and Blue Party; a large private party promoted to Chicago’s Leather and S&M community. The body was dressed for the event, had been whipped, and was found penetrated by sex toys. Was Belger gay? Is his killer? Or is someone trying to divert suspicion by focusing attention on the gay community?  It is an interesting story of murder and police corruption set against the backdrop of Chicago’s S&m subculture.

As always, the characters in Zubro’s book are well drawn and his descriptions of Chicago, especially gay Chicago, lend verisimilitude. The action takes place over a short time span which adds to the sense of excitement and urgency. The police corruption angle is familiar territory in the age of Law & Order but it is convincingly created here. The S&M content is more referential than graphic so it is unlikely there is anything here to offend even the most conservative readers

Full disclosure: I have the pleasure of knowing the author socially. He is charming and witty and we share a fondness for a particular Danish pastry from bakeries in Racine, Wisconsin. I can’t think of better reasons for choosing a book.

Mark Zubro is the author of some two dozen detective novels featuring gay protagonists. The 11th novel in the Paul Turner series; Pawn of Satan was published in October, 2013.

His most recent book; Safe was published last month.

Black and Blue and Pretty Dead Too
by Mark Zubro
MLR Press 2011
Kindle Edition 329 pages

Tribes

Inclusion, acceptance, a sense of community; these are all aspects of what it means to be a member of a tribe. Externally established expectations, arbitrary social norms, peer pressure to conform; these are parts of the package too. Nina Raine’s 2010 play Tribes explores both sides of membership; the need and the cost. The act of being defined, or of defining oneself, as a member of a tribe simultaneously defines others as outside it.  For every ‘us’ there is a ‘them’.

Set in contemporary England, the play focuses on an intellectual couple and their three adult children; all living at home. The parents; Christopher and Beth, and the two older children are members of the hearing community. The youngest son, Billy, was born deaf.

Their already tumultuous lives are further disrupted when Billy meets Sylvia. The daughter of deaf parents, Sylvia is losing her hearing as her brother did before her. She, her family, and her friends in the deaf community, of which she is an active member, all use sign language.

Christopher and Beth decided not to learn nor teach Billy to sign because they felt it was better to treat him as if his deafness did not exist; despite knowing that their son could not fully inhabit their world of argument and music. According to Christopher; “Making deafness the center of your identity is the beginning of the end”. Christopher also fears that sign language lacks nuance and abstraction and would, ultimately, limit his youngest son’s ability to express himself.

Christopher, Beth and their family are obsessed with, and overwhelmed by communication in all its forms. Christopher is an academic for whom criticism is both a vocation and an avocation. He takes no pains to spare his family. In his spare time he is learning another language from recordings. Beth referees the family conflicts and is writing a novel.

Older son, Daniel, has moved back home after a failed relationship. He is unemployed and struggling with his thesis on the way language fails to determine meaning. He is bright but fraught with insecurities. He stammers and is tormented by the critical voices he hears inside his head.

Daughter Ruth hasn’t met the right man yet. She aspires to sing opera but so far has been able to sing only in church and the pub.

Billy’s lip-reading skills are exceptional but he is often unable to keep up with the avalanche of words pouring over the dining table. His parents and siblings rarely take the time to explain the discussion to him so he doesn’t participate. He is simultaneously included in and excluded from the family’s nearly constant debate. He has learned to use his intuition and imagination to augment his lip-reading skills to fill in the blanks where they exist. This is a habit that will bring him to grief later in the play.

It becomes clear that all three children are challenged. Billy’s deafness is merely the most visible of their disabilities.

Playwright Nina Raine

Billy and Sylvia are distorted mirror-images of each other. He is a deaf man raised in a hearing home who does not sign. He is unable to connect with others like himself. She is a hearing woman raised in a deaf home who can sign. She communicates easily with the Deaf but is rapidly losing her connection to the hearing world. Also, as a person who is losing her hearing rather than having been born without it, she experiences deafness differently from others who are hearing impaired. Many in the deaf community chose not to see deafness as a disability. As someone who is losing touch with the world of sound she has always known, she grieves the loss and this makes her somewhat of an outsider.

Sylvia’s influence on Billy is complex. She loves him and leads him to a world of independence and expression he has not previously experienced. At the same time, she demands he adapt to his deafness in ways his family had never required.

In the world of Tribes, good and bad are relative concepts. Near the end of the opening scene Billy and Daniel are left alone. Daniel turns up the radio as they talk because it drowns out the voices in his head. He needs the sound. It is both his curse and his refuge. The radio creates a buzzing in Billy’s hearing aids that make it difficult for him to focus. He needs the silence.

Act I ends with Sylvia playing the piano. Sharing the music helps her bond with Billy’s family. She plays beautifully. The poignant moment is made achingly beautiful by the knowledge not only that music is a gift she can never  share with Billy but by her own awareness that, because of her increasing deafness, every time she plays she experiences the music less fully.

Tribes premiered in London in 2010 where it earned an Olivier Award nomination for Best Play. It opened Off-Broadway in 2012 where it won the Drama Desk Award for Outstanding Play. On one level it is a coming-of-age story of a young deaf man finding his independence. On another level it explores the ways families, for better and for worse, share their values. Ultimately the play speaks to the need we all share to feel connected to other people; and the toll that takes. On each of these levels it is compelling theater.