Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Wed, 19 Jul 2000 19:35:09 -0300 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Christopher Webber:
>"Parsifal" is not an 'expression' of anything. The question of racial
>superiority is undeniably part of its disturbing web and woof. In the
>reality of the theatre - the most potent way to experience the opera -
>the Grail Knights are often currently portrayed that way, so the image
>must carry resonance for many. (The recent production at ENO in London
>portrayed them as broken down First World War German soldiers, to
>extremely powerful effect.)
May this extremely powerful effect be laugh, perhaps?. I didn't see
that production, but honestly, I can't think of anything more bizarre.
That sort of neo-pagans looking for the Holy Graal with their gas masks,
fumigating half Europe...?
Robert Peters:
>It is not essential to define love and sex to enjoy it. Let it be with
>music like this, too. (In fact in both cases definition only cause harm.)
No, of course. But talking about love and sex is an old and pleasant
entertainment. I don't see the harm in defining love and music. Didn't
Plato do it, while drinking and having fun with his friends?.
Pablo Massa
[log in to unmask]
|
|
|