BY BEN WINTERS
It came out of nowhere, right in the middle of President Bush’s lengthy speech to the U.N. on Sept. 12th, which was 99 percent about how it’s high time we go bust some heads in Iraq.
The other 1 percent of the speech, surprisingly, was about UNESCO, which the U.S. is apparently ready to rejoin after an 18 year absence. That’s the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, a program co-created by the U.S. after World War II with a mandate to encourage the exchange of culture and knowledge among member nations. America dropped out in the 1980’s, in part due to—you’re never gonna believe this one—squabbling with the Soviet Union.
The New York Times, in a tiny unbylined story, postulated that rejoining UNESCO as part of the speech was a smart move for Bush: "The timing seemed perfect to prove that the United States was serious about the United Nations." In other words, at a time when the world is wary of America’s seeming unilateral foreign policy, we threw them a bone—we may have blown off the Kyoto Treaty, but we’re willing to send a delegate to a cultural conference or two.
The Boston Globe ran the Associated Press story on page A40, directly quoting the President’s uninspired remarks: " 'This organization has been reformed and America will participate fully in its mission to advance human rights, tolerance, and learning…’ Bush’s comments were met with applause." So what does UNESCO actually do? Well, the recent Stockholm Intergovernmental Conference on Cultural Policies for Development, for example, concluded "how important it is to bring culture 'in from the margins’ and to the heart of policy-making for sustainable development." If that sounds fun, mark your calendar for the upcoming International Expert Meeting on the Return of Cultural Property and the Fight Against Its International Trafficking, coming up on Sept. 30th in Seoul, South Korea. Get your application in now—looks like America will be sending someone over after all.
A War of Culture
Meanwhile, the wall-to-wall coverage of the 9/11 anniversary included arts section coverage in papers nationwide on how the arts have come to assimilate the events of last year into the popular culture. On Sept. 9, for example, both the Denver Post and the Los Angeles Times had long features on the issue.
The Denver piece, by Joanna Ostrow and Ricardo Baca, starts by describing an online game you really, really want to be a joke:
"Click to play New York Defender, an online computer game, and the twin towers appear against a clear sky. Slowly an airplane approaches. Your job is to shoot down planes before they strike the buildings." Alas! As Ostrow and Baca explain, the French designers who created the site made a game where "there is no way to win…to illustrate the impossibility of fighting terrorism."
"The 'game’ suggests artistic responses to 9/11 are bubbling up in unexpected places," conclude the Denver Post writers. One could equally conclude that it suggests something about the French. Ostrow and Baca then move swiftly to other 9/11 inspired or influenced cultural expressions. It’s an oddly schizophrenic story, positing that "[o]ne year later, the inevitable absorption of the trauma of Sept. 11, 2001, into popular culture is proceeding slowly," and then, two sentences later, that this week "[s]ome 150 books and 50 theatre pieces will debut to mark the anniversary."
That doesn’t sound like a very slow procession: It sounds like a deluge. The article then plunges into that deluge, spending a paragraph or two each on books ("September 11, 2001: American Writers Respond"), on music (the nasty Eminem video where he dresses up as Osama Bin Laden; Bruce Springsteen’s "reverent and lasting" new album), and on television, where two made-for-TV movies about Flight 93 are in production. One of the scripts, reports the Post, is "by Lawrence Schiller, who previously wrote the book and CBS movie adaptation Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, the JonBenet Ramsey story."
The LA Times article focuses wholly on movies and television, and how the industry is, in general, making more careful choices about subject matter in the wake of the attacks. Cushy, heartfelt shows are making a big push this season, shows like "American Dreams," "a new prime-time drama about a family coming of age during the heyday of 'American Bandstand’ and President John F. Kennedy’s assassination."
Also in the works for ABC is "That Was Then," "an hour-long drama/comedy about a guy who returns to high school for a year of 'do-overs.’" Here’s the pitch offered to the Times by the network’s president of entertainment: "What if you could go back to a time in your life when you made a mistake and could fix it, knowing all you know now? I think that whole idea of wanting to make things right, and lost opportunities, came after 9/11."
Well, sure—"do-overs" is definitely a new idea in popular entertainment, except for Groundhog Day, Sliding Doors, Rashoman, It’s a Wonderful Life, and that show from the 80s where the girl was from outer space and could stop time.
So Long, Madame Costumer
"'We’ve been criticized for choices of plays, the way they’ve been done, but certainly never the work of the costume. And Annette is responsible for that.’" So said the Guthrie Theater’s Sheila Livingston on Sept. 13th in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, as part of a loving and extensive farewell article to costumer Annette Garceau, who at age 89 is hanging up her needles. She’s been at the Guthrie since the beginning, creating costumes for the regional powerhouse since 1963.
In the piece (by the Star-Trib’s theatre man, Graydon Royce), Garceau gently refuses to "dish" on the famous actors who she’s worked with over the years, but she will offer one piece of advice to directors: "Tear yourself away from rehearsal on occasion, she suggested, and come into the fitting room to have a look at how the costumery is working, or not working. Offer an idea! 'A little input like that would be greatly appreciated,’ [Garceau] said, smiling."