On a midsummer
Saturday night, I had the fortune of witnessing a modern adaptation of
Hamlet at the Bard on the Beach festival. It was my first time to
attend the annual event the flapping tents of which had been tempting
me for quite some time. I have no qualms with modernized versions of
Shakespearean plays as long as the text with its incomparably
beautiful language is left intact and is not tampered with.
As this is the
longest (and in my view the most ambitious and profound) of
Shakespeare's plays, I expected some cuts and edits here and there due
to time constraints. When I feel like taking in the full unedited
version, I will always faithfully turn to Kenneth Branagh's
magnificent and faithful film version of the tale at the comfort of
my abode.
In fact, no matter how interesting or engaging the play may
be, sitting on one's behind for four hours straight surrounded by
hundreds of strangers and without any access to crispy snacks is
indeed a challenge even for hardened Shakespeare fans.
Again I did not mind
that swords were generally replaced by guns. I also found the
multimedia aspect of this version rather interesting. The characters
are mostly in modern business suits, and Hamlet has an ever-present
prop and gadget in his hand, his android, which was occasionally used
for taking pictures and heavily used as a music-playing device.
The
music itself ranged from techno to The Beatles (the Revolution track
in particular) to a bizarre but amusing use of Velvet Underground's
“I'm sticking with you.” There were also TV monitors displaying
the news on CNN regarding the political actions of Fortinbras.
Most of this worked
for me, and the highlight was the play to catch the king that involved
mini-cameras filming a dollhouse projected on a big screen. It had a
Lynchean feel to it. The scene where Hamlet confronts his mother and
reprehends her for choosing Claudius over his own father by showing
her pictures of each person on her iPad was rather ingenious.
A number of personal
reactions struck me as I was watching the play unfold before my eyes.
The timelessness of Shakespeare came to mind. In terms of plot and
subject matter, this play has not aged a bit.
Nor has it regarding
wisdom. There is so much knowledge and insight contained in these
three or thereabout hours that it makes one's head spin. Having it
performed live surely helps since one can pick out a variety of puns,
which the reading eye may not catch to its full resounding extent.
Moreover,
Shakespeare gives his characters life and dimensions; he fleshes them
out carefully and then throws them into action. Hamlet who had always
struck me as a neurotic à la Woody Allen type can come out as a deeply
troubled, if not insane, young man.
His quest for
answers concerning life and death resonates in every philosophically
or spiritually-inclined person. His musings are ours; our doubts,
hopes, fears, desires, frustrations are reflected therein. That there
is a time interval of four hundred years is no matter here; the
questions are as freshly troubling as ever, the answers equally
elusive.
With those ideas
throbbing and pulsating in my mind I decided to walk home. I crossed
the Burrard Bridge and enjoyed the nighttime view from above, occasionally stopping to take a snapshot with my iPhone. I imagined
Hamlet in my situation perhaps deliberating whether to jump or not to
jump. In my case, I was thrilled with the warm mid-summer night air,
while my spirit was replenished with masterful art; in fact, I even
wished I could travel to the stars and hug the glowing moon.
My walk lasted about
half an hour. After the bridge, I reached a bustling street that had
its share of young people all dressed up and ready to dance, to party
and to get drunk. Some of them were already in an inebriated state.
Many of them were
waiting in line to get to the hotspots, the most popular and thriving
nightclubs in town. They were excited. I could see it in their faces,
their hand gestures, their body movements, and I could hear it in the
timber of their voices. Some of them had come to have a good time
with their friends, to vent off steam from life's many pressures
and / or to find a temporary and dispensable sexual partner.
The women looked
great. They had brought out their sexiest outfits for that specific
moment. During the day, they would clothe and hide themselves in
appropriate office wear, but at night they would give free reign to
the sexy tigress within them. Some of them perhaps just felt good to
look attractive; others may have had other objectives in mind.
As all these people
were chatting loudly and passionately about God knows what, I realized
how much I was out of place. My thoughts were revolving around
Hamlet, art and existence and here there were these young folks who
did not give a six-pence or farthing for any of that. They were here
to devour life, to take it by its horns and to drink it with
gratifying pleasure.
My own ideas of
pleasure felt at odds. Even in my younger years I preferred the
company of a good book or movie over the wild and bustling throngs of
people. Nightclubs never really appealed to me. They were too loud.
One could not have a decent conversation in there.
One could not talk
about philosophy, life, and Hamlet in those stuffy and often
smoke-filled rooms. Beer and alcohol dulled, not sharpened the mind;
they lulled one's speech; they distorted one's equilibrium. They
brought out baser or more instinctual pleasures to the foreground.
They also had the bewitching power to make (almost) everyone
appealing and desirable.
That was never my
world. Sensual pleasures, unbridled, free and selective does appeal
to me at times (in thought, not in deed!) but I still prefer the life
I have. My wife and my son and my days of going to family events,
watching movies and TV series, or reading and blogging are what matter
to me.
These are my
pleasures, pure and simple. I remember once being asked in my psych
class what was the most pleasurable thing that had occurred to me
that week. Without hesitating I answered that it was buying the
latest Sting CD.
I am sure I am missing out on some pleasures. But at
the same time, I am profoundly happy how things are and the way I am
and deep inside I do not think I am actually missing or missing out
on anything of real importance. I was and hope to be true to mine own
self.
This may seem like
an absurd (and blasphemous) question at first sight. God is considered perfection
personified with all good and commendable attributes elevated to the
nth degree, their highest and most extreme form. God is omnipotent;
he can change the course of history, slaughter humans and animals
alike, close and open wombs, split seas, burn bushes without leaving
a trace, create miracles out of thin air and humans out of sheer
dust.
Interestingly, Adam
was created in the image of God. So in a sense if he is not a mirror
image, then at least Adam is similar in likeness to his Creator; in
other words, he is like
God. Adam can be seen as the child or student, and God his father and
master. Nonetheless, it is made clear from the outset that God is and
must be at all times superior to Adam. God commands full and complete
obedience from his creation.
Yet it so happens
that there are two trees in the Garden of Eden. Whether God put them
there on purpose (generally not a good idea since it would imply a
self-defeating act) or they were there to begin with, namely that
heaven ispo facto comes with those trees in the very midst of the
garden, or whether perhaps someone else had planted them there, these
are all questions and speculations beyond the scope of this current
post.
It seems that
neither Adam nor Eve paid too much attention to this; they knew of
the existence of the Tree of Good and Evil which God forbade them to eat from at the expense and punishment of death, but they showed no
particular interest or inclination towards it. This changes, however,
when the Serpent points out the “benefits” of eating from the
forbidden fruit, often referred to as apples due to its Latin
similarity of its root word malum
denoting evil.
I imagine that both
Adam and Eve started pondering whether they should have of it or not.
They do not want to disobey or displease their God, yet the seed of
curiosity is budding within them. The serpent had assured them that
they would not die, but rather their eyes will be opened, and they
will see and be like God; they will know the distinction between good
and evil and become wise.
At that time, they
are still shielded and protected by a complete ignorance of evil. But
what if they were able to cast aside their naivety and open their
eyes to both sides of the spectrum? They would not only gain
knowledge and learn to distinguish good from evil, but they would be
able to make a choice, to have an operating and functional will.
Although this is
often depicted as transgression or disobedience towards God, I see it
more as an act of empowerment. It may look like willful or sinful
rebellion, yet their actions in my view are not ill-intentioned
because how could they know the difference between good and bad,
right and wrong at that stage? You cannot blame someone for doing
wrong or for being unethical if the concept of and distinction
between right and wrong makes no sense to them.
God's reaction is
very interesting here. He gets furious. He expels them from paradise,
blocks its entry with cherubim guards and a flaming sword and curses
the ancestors of humanity with labor (in both senses of the word)
as well as death.
But why? Sure, they
did wrong, but so does everyone else who is innocent, naive or lacks
knowledge about the world or ethics. Adam and Eve are not perfect, and
I do not think they fully knew what they were doing nor were they
aware of the grave consequences of their action. All they did was to
eat some fruit. Big deal.
Yet what if that act
had given them unprecedented power? While they may have been in the
likeness or appearance of God, they were not equal to him in their
powers, imagination or mental faculties. But what if suddenly they
had come a step closer towards enlightenment or godhood?
Adam and Eve had
acquired knowledge, but what was missing was the everlasting strength
and power. Yet incidentally next to the Tree of Good and Evil, there
was the Tree of Life. Now if they had also eaten from that tree, they
would have been given eternal life to boot. They would have been on
par with God Himself! God gives voice to his fears – as he is
talking either to himself or to a companion - claiming that man was becoming
like them;
should Adam and Eve also eat of the Tree of Life, they could live forever.
By acting quickly,
expelling them and guarding the gates of heaven with heavily armed
angels, it seems that God made sure that day would never come.
To make matters worse - for us and not for him of course - he gave
them mortality. He let them struggle for survival; they had to sustain
themselves by their own means via constant work. Gone were the
heavenly days of bliss and idleness and ever since then humans have
to work with the sweat of their brows for a piece of bread.
My second example is
the Flood. What if God destroyed almost all of humanity not merely
because of their purported evil ways but because he had effectively
lost control and say over them. Perhaps they were getting too
independent or insolent for his taste. It seems that in the
revolutionary minds of those people, obedience was the last thing on
earth they would have embraced. Yet God sees that if he killed them
all, his own work and diligence would become futile, so he saved one
of the best of their kind for posterity, good old Noah.
After this clearing
of accounts and new tidings, we have another instance, namely the
Tower of Babel. This is the most explicit example where humans try to
reach (for) God. Yet this stairway to heaven was not welcomed by God.
Why not?
God could have
dismissed it as an idle and innocuous threat, but instead he took it
quite seriously. We do not know the actual intention or motivation of
the people in Babel. Did they simply wish to contact God or did they
want to besiege and take over his territory?
Either way, the
consequence is quite clear. God is telling someone (again whom???)
that humans have become too unified and strong, so he brings about
confusion by confounding their tongues.
It seems that the
unity of nation and language had created a possible threat to the
dominance of God. It is mainly through this united front that they
conceived and dared to engage in such an ambitious feat, namely to
construct a tower so high that it can reach the very top of the
firmaments, the zenith of the skies. Just like Adam, they too are
banished and spread out around the globe, and instead of harmony,
discord is created amongst them.
Now it may be that
all of these speculations are misguided and that God would never fear
humans because he is at all times and in all aspects and respects
superior to all of humanity. Perhaps it is that the God of the Old
Testament is merely demanding and strict. He does not tolerate the
slightest disobedience from his creatures.
According to the Old
Testament, any other hobbies or pastimes, not to mention other gods,
are strongly discouraged, and such transgressions are often punished
with death or exile. In fact, worshippers are told to wash their
hands and feet before praying or else they shall die. These types of
pronouncements seem too harsh, if not petty or unjust, in our modern
eyes. Maybe it is that the God of the Old Testament is indeed a
jealous god as he himself proclaims on certain occasions.
If it were not for
Moses's ardent pleading, God wanted to kill them all for their
offense, namely for praying to and idolizing the holy calf. God
insists on being faceless and ought not be symbolized or represented
in discernible ways (this is all pre-Jesus times of course). In the
end, God accepts to sign another covenant or treaty with humans
forgiving them once again for their sins and trespasses. It is only
over a long period of time that God and humans manage to slowly build
trust and a hopeful and lasting relationship with each other.
The question still
remains whether God is indeed afraid of the capabilities and
potential of humans. Yet if God is indeed jealous, then he is more in
our likeness than we would care (or dare) to admit. He would be
plagued with the same uncertainties and demons, but then that would
be a contradiction in terms to the superior and excelling qualities
we generally attribute to God. It would take Jesus with his new
gospel and the New Testament to come in-between God and humans, and
he would redeem the latter and console the former to attain lasting
peace between each other.
On one of those
sleepless summer nights I caught moments of a French CBC radio show
(strangely enough that channel is my antidote to insomnia) in which
there was talk about food and its influence and connection with
culture. In this social anthropology of food, the main observation
was that ethnic food from relatively poorer or developing countries,
such as India, Thailand, Mexico, and parts of Africa are more popular
and known - not to mention tastier - than Western food. So they
looked for possible underlying reasons for this phenomenon.
One of the factors
that influences the preparation and consumption of food is family
harmony. In fact, food brings the family together at the table, and
it is shared and eaten as a kind of bonding ritual. This is mostly
the case in collectivist countries in which family is given more
importance and priority, and food becomes its indispensable
ambassador.
In Mexico, I was
often surprised how poor people who barely have enough money for
their daily expenses do not tamper with nor moderate their amount of
food consumption. They eat well regardless of their economic status,
and they would even go to extremes of pawning their belongings to
offer their guests abundant quality food. It is seen as a major
embarrassment if there were a lack of food or drink at a
get-together, and countries that appreciate and value these bonds are
known to be the most hospitable.
In such economies,
the patriarchal structure is still prevalent. Women are often
responsible for cooking. They usually take and spend a lot of time in
the kitchen to prepare sumptuous and delicious meals for the family.
It is all made with love, and they become the glue that can create
and sustain family harmony. For modern Western ears, this may sound
as a serious case of sexism or male chauvinism, and to a degree this
is in fact so.
But since women are
often not pursuing careers in those countries (although this is
beginning to change), they perfect their cooking. Strong flavours are
more common in such societies and food is seen as both pleasurable
and sacred. The delicious taste relaxes the tired and hardworking
bodies and fills and renews the souls. Time stops and tomorrow (or
mañana),
with all its work and pain and suffering is kept at bay for the time
being.
Ethnic food is
recognizable by its strong, pungent and easily recognizable smell,
whereas it seems that Western food is embarrassed of any types of
odors even if they be pleasant. Since time is often perceived as
money, food becomes merely important for its physical properties,
namely as fortification of the body.
The less time one
spends on cooking food and the faster it can be consumed, the more
hours of work and hence income would become available and possible
for the individuals. This may be a reason why in Western societies,
family is not a top priority, and food becomes diverted to more
shallow and less expensive forms of nourishment, such as junk and
fast food.
In addition, there
are other factors that influence the type of food, such as the choice
of ingredients. In tropical climates, the taste of these ingredients
is often richer and more natural, whereas in colder industrial
climates, we eat for the most part genetically modified and
manipulated food that looks good, but has no particular taste.
Also, a high consumption of food may slow down the metabolism, which makes
people sleepy and leads to laziness. This may be a taboo word in
Western culture, but it is generally accepted in others, especially
Latin countries that still insist on the practice of siestas,
with the potential aim to sleep off one's meals.
Lastly, food is also
its presentation. We are rather squeamish when it comes to it. There
are many things we do not eat, and we want our food to look
presentable. Having a fish with its head and eyes staring at you from
your plate will not make your mouth savor.
But Mexicans and
Chinese, for instance, are not so concerned whether their food looks
delicious but are more preoccupied with its taste. And there are
indeed very few things considered taboo in those cultures, including
blood and brains, food we often attribute to vampires and zombies
respectively.
It is a shame that
food is not as celebrated here as in other countries. It is not the
same ritual for us. Food as celebration is usually delegated to the
outside, namely to restaurants, picnics or barbecues. Few, to my
knowledge, have sumptuous feasts (the occasional festive days
excepted) in which the aim is to devour delicious treats in the name
and for the sake of harmony between family and friends.
