Children in Cages for "Protection" in the USA

I have never been active politically in any direct sense, neither have I published my thoughts on political matters before this. However, the current debate surrounding an unspecified number of children kept in cages and other problematic environments, separated from their parents, by the country that I learnt at school is the beacon of liberty and freedom, the USA, and the nature of the debate around these political decisions at the highest level of USA politics, the words used by those politicians in charge, lead me to speak out.

It is essential that the caging of children is stopped as soon as possible. Nothing whatsoever, categorically, justifies that kind of treatment of young, vulnerable human beings. Illegal immigration is a problem but putting children into cages cannot be (part of) the solution.

However, those in charge of the decisions seem not to consider those children as human. They talk about illegal immigrants infesting the country. Infestation is a term referring to vermin. Vermin are not human. Thus, the creatures that infest the country, those illegal immigrants, are not human. The children in question are the children of those immigrants, and they are therefore also not human, by implication.

The Nazis considered Jews as sub-human, as non-human, as vermin. They exterminated as much vermin as they could, very efficiently. This started on a small scale and grew to unimaginable proportions. It may have started with comparatively few people in cages.

The US attorney general commented on the parallel with Nazi Germany, raised by a fellow American, a former CIA director, “In Nazi Germany, they were keeping the Jews from leaving the country”. If that was the only comment by the attorney general, then he is in fact admitting that the parallel raised by the former CIA director is substantial, because the difference the attorney general points out is irrelevant in the context, and many Jews did not get out of Germany because other countries did not want them either and actively closed their borders to them.

The Nazis had showcase concentration camps, in which they showed the world how well the Jews were treated in those camps. In relation to the illegal immigrant children in USA cages, the attorney general and other speakers for the administration insist that children separated from their parents are being treated well, and not abused. What??? A child, separated from his/her parents, in a cage is a sign of that child being well treated? Keeping a child, separated from his/her parents, in a cage is not abuse? Keeping a child, separated from his/her parents, in a cage is not torture? Why do I even have to spell this out? How can any human being doubt that keeping a child, separated from his/her parents, in a cage is not pleasant for a child and that this constitutes abuse and torture? How can any human being stand in front of others and seek to justify such abuse and torture? Some even say that the children are in those facilities, and that means in those cages, to protect them...

The video that is going viral, showing those children’s suffering and their pain, also has soundtrack of officials working at those facilities, whom the authorities assure us are well trained in taking care of children’s needs, making fun of the sounds of the children crying. They do not come across as competent, trained or caring, but as nasty and inhumane. Their attitude, which comes out in what they say and the way they say it, is reminiscent of what we know about the attitude of Nazi concentration camp guards.

Spokespeople of those in power say that all is done in compliance with the law, the law as decided by Congress, the law which officials have sworn to abide by. Is there a law that says that children of illegal immigrants, or children who cross the border illegally on their own, must be kept in cages? When confronted with their crimes, Nazis often excused themselves that they had only followed orders.

With hindsight, many people have asked how the Holocaust was possible. The answer is: among other things because nobody bothered to really do anything against it, either in Germany or outside. I have only hinted, above, at some parallels, very vaguely, very gently, to the developments in 21^st century, 2018 USA. Let us hope that history does not repeat itself to the extent that hundreds become thousands, become tens of thousands, and so on, and that facilities are being developed where the current update of Zyklon B is administered to exterminate contemporary vermin.

The development of Klaus Florian Vogt's voice and singing

I became aware of Klaus Florian Vogt at some point in the late 2000s, certainly after his career-defining performance as Lohengrin in Baden-Baden, Germany which was recorded and produced for DVD

DVD cover, Lohengrin 2006, Baden-Baden

In 2009 I saw him in a recital in honour of German Wagnerian conductor Hans Wallat, in 2010 as Parsifal in Geneva, followed by a recital with Orchestra in Hamburg in March 2011, then the recital at the Deutsche Oper Berlin in early July 2011, conducted by Peter Schneider, which formed the basis of Vogt's first CD, Helden. This was followed by a production of Die Walküre with Vogt as Siegmund in Barcelona in 2014, and in the same year his recital with the Birmingham City Symphony Orchestra conducted by Andris Nelsons, with excerpts of Lohengrin and Parsifal. In 2016 Lohengrin in Düsseldorf, and 2018 Lohengrin in London.

Covent Garden Production of Lohengrin, 2018

It is interesting to have been able, over the years, to observe the development of this exceptional singer's exceptional voice. It is a development of craft, skill, and artistry, in relation to the natural development of the instrument of the voice. Vogt combines gift, talent, hard work and care and caution in the expansion of his repertory of roles. When Vogt sang his early Lohengrin, that was the only way he could sing it, given the nature of his voice as it was then. The voice has changed. It has become stronger, more rounded, richer, particularly in the lower register. It is this development which enabled Vogt to add Siegmund to his repertory inrecital in 2011, and in a full production in 2012, and Tannhäuser in 2017. Moreover, it has allowed him, over the years, to refine the way he uses his voice. The sounds of Lohengrin, in the first few years of his singing this role, came to a large extent spontaneously and could not have come in any different way. He has allowed his voice to develop in line with its own needs and scope. At the current stage in his career, he is therefore able to consciously shape and mould each sound as he produces it precisely as he wishes, while at the same time making the result of his intention appear natural and spontaneous. Vogt's rendering of Lohengrin's grail narration, "In fernem Land", towards the end of the opera, from productions over the years, supports my impression.

Baden-Baden, 2006

Berlin, 2011 (conducted by Peter Schneider)

Vienna, September 2016 (starts at 3:21:42)

By now, 2018, after the exposure to singing Tannhäuser in 2017, Vogt's ability of consciously shaping the singing of Lohengrin has increased further, as has the art of making it sound spontaneous.

Opera, ethics and dignity

There are messages on the London Underground, in railway guidelines or even brochures of the Royal Opera indicating that they have a “no tolerance policy” when it comes to abuse by members of the public of other users of their services or of their staff. It is sad that we are living in times where such guidelines are needed, but it is essential that we realise that they are needed, and that we act accordingly and provide guidelines which are enforceable by law. I wonder whether it has ever occurred to the performing arts industry whether such guidelines are necessary for performers in terms of what they are expected to do on stage. I have written about this before (2013, 101-112) raising the following questions:

·       Are those who object to some expressions of theatre simply narrow-minded, or conservative to the extent of rejecting innovation?

·       Is it all just a matter of taste, and therefore relative, subjective, personal, and therefore ultimately not relevant for or interesting to public / critical / academic debates?

·       Are there, should there be limits beyond which theatre should not go—regarding the extent to which the dramatist or director may demand behaviour from the actors that in many contexts other than theatre would be considered highly problematic, morally suspect, possibly with legal implications?

·       Could there be any circumstance in which such activity, both gross and subtle is acceptable?

·       Is its unacceptability subject to debate?

·       What are the criteria a serious critical discussion needs to establish and then adhere to?

·       To what extent can the canon of ethical writing provide the context?

The examples from my own theatre experience and from reading reviews focused on quite openly controversial issues, such as defecating or urinating on stage, real or faked, smearing themselves with real or stage blood, or any other bodily fluid, for that matter, and killing live animals, for real, on stage? Today I want to address things that performers (in my examples, opera singers) are expected to do that are much less crass and gross than the examples above. They need addressing nevertheless because of their potential adverse impact on performers and because they represent instances where the purpose and nature of art are fundamentally misunderstood.

At a recent production of Siegfried by Wagner at the Deutsche Oper am Rhein, Düsseldorf, the tenor had to eat real food on stage during the performance--how can this not have an adverse impact on his singing? It was embarrassing to see the overweight mezzo soprano singing Erda in the same production having to lie down on a sofa that was way too small for her size, and later sit up on the sofa, only to be covered by a heavy large piece of cloth for some 45 minutes. Who would doubt that the first experience is humiliating for the soprano, and the second one somewhere on the scale between somewhat to very uncomfortable. Yes, the tenor can still sing, the mezzo soprano can still sing; in comparison, these examples may come across as relatively harmless, and they may be. However, what does it do to the singer’s career if the review mentions her ability to endure under the blanket rather than her vocal qualities? How does the humiliation impact on the soprano’s well-being, both subjectively (i.e., she felt humiliated and noticed it) and objectively (she is a rationaliser, in psychological terms, feels not affected by it, but empirical research could show physiological reactions that she is not aware of, and which correlate to the humiliating stimulus)? What if the tenor cannot do full justice to one of the most difficult roles in the opera literature because he had to eat during the performance, and does not get invited to the next higher level of the opera hierarchy by the artistic director who saw him in a performance marred by him having had to eat?

In artistic terms, should not part of the director's role include demonstrating at least the amount or the extent of insight it requires not to threaten, by the directorial decisions and choices, the sound quality the singer is able to produce? If we, as non-singers, recreate for ourselves some of the physical positions we see singers in on stage, we have difficulty breathing and speaking. Some training that the singer has, and we don’t have, may compensate for the effect such positions have on the professionals in comparison to laypeople. Singers may also develop their own survival strategies. But some adverse effect is sure to remain; assuming it is not sheer nastiness on the part of directors to choreograph a problematic physical position for their singers, is can only be ignorance, and directors should take it upon themselves to be knowledgeable about how a singer’s body works in relation to singing. Even an experienced and highly renowned singer such as Klaus Florian Vogt cannot produce the best of his sound in his signature role of Lohengrin in Act I Scene 3 in the phrase "Durch Gottes Sieg" on the high note of "Gottes" if he has to freeze, after the fight, before that line, in the physical position where he hovers above Telramund, right foot forward, left foot behind, and has to lift the huge and heavy metal sword in such a way that his left arm is highest and carrying most of the weight--i.e., in counter-balance to the position of the feet. Vogt had difficulty with the "Gottes" with that choreography at the current London production directed by David Alden, although he was brilliant at covering up that difficulty and many will not have noticed. But he was forced to sing less well than he can, and to cover a difficulty.

Should not the director be in charge of a production that is both telling a gripping story to the audience and allowing the singers to use their bodies, to hold their bodies, in the positions that are best for them to produce the best sound with their voices? I would even argue that achieving such a combination of gripping storytelling together with an insight into the singer’s craft is much more challenging for any director than simply forcing their singers into physical positions, and movements that they have to work against while on stage, rather than being supported by them in their singing.

In addition to supporting or hindering the singers' singing, directors have a further major role in dealing with their singers' physicalities. It is still the case, for whatever reason, that many singers are, in medical terms, overweight. No extent or degree of political correctness, which might require us not to mention this, can hide this fact. It is equally fact, and even more contentious that people relate weight and beauty. Is it for what could be considered one of the most conservative and conventional art forms, opera, to serve as an educational tool for changing people's attitudes? Possibly. However, if that is one of the aims of opera, for some directors, how is it best achieved? By doing almost everything possible, or at least a lot, to show, parade and expose the excessive weight of the singer? Does the audience get a better image of obesity when the near-immobile tenor is asked to engage in movements that an agile performer might find challenging, but which cannot fail to make the overweight tenor look ridiculous? Is there any point, whatsoever, really, in having the overweight soprano, particularly an older one, in a costume that is sleeveless? Do we need to encounter the sight of the flabby, wobbly excessive fat on her upper arms and armpits? Is the revelation supposed to make her look beautiful? To challenge our idea of beauty? Of course, the director may want to show that a character looks ugly and uses the singer’s physical givens as a starting point, showcasing them intentionally. Such an intention on the director’s part, however, is rather an egoistic insult on the part of the director, or design team, to us, but especially to the soprano in question. It is also an example of poor story-telling because the intended outward ugliness clashes, in most instances of the operatic canon, with the beauty of the music (unless the playing of that music is equally distorted by the conductor and orchestra). In most opera, ugliness or evil and the like are hinted at, implied, or expressed and carried in contexts and through means that are in themselves explicitly beautiful. Not surprisingly, revelations of a singer’s obesity tend to occur predominantly in productions that have problems with their storytelling to start with, and usually throughout. A brief look at the fashion industry will not fail to demonstrate that there are plenty of ways of showing and foregrounding that an overweight person, no matter whether male or female, can look beautiful in line with current norms. That is a major shift of insight, well worth for opera to be focusing on.

Great opera merges vivid, cogent story-telling, which can be conservative or innovative in approach, with a splendid interpretation of the music by the conductor and the singers. Within that framework, opera can afford to take the demands of the singer’s voice in relation to their body into account and can afford not to threaten the best possible voice production for each singer. Opera can take up the challenge of all great art, of presenting its plots and its characters in a way that is beautiful even if the circumstances at the centre of the plot, or the traits of the characters, are all but beautiful. That is the potential of art; realising that potential and doing it justice is the challenge to all artists. Realising and safeguarding the performer’s dignity is an essential part of that.