Black Nativity: Everything You Expect + a Few Surprises

Black Nativity

By Langston Hughes

Directed by Voncelle Ross

Emerson Paramount Center

December 5-21, 2025

In 1961, as if in anticipation of Black Power, Langston Hughes wrote a Christmas pageant unlike any of that time, telling the familiar birth of Jesus story with a cast of Black actors, portraying that story from the strengths of Black artistry. The singing was Gospel rather than hymnal. The dancing was tribal, rooted. And the Biblical narratives were translated into 20th century eloquence, with a decidedly Black slant.

Miss Elma Lewis, grand doyenne of Boston, founder of The Elma Lewis School of Fine Arts, as well as NCAAA (National Center of Afro-American Artists), staged Black Nativity to Boston in 1970. The pageant has been performed every holiday season since.

As an aging white guy with takes no comfort from either the religious or commercial aspects of Christmas, there wasn’t much drawing me to Black Nativity. But as a Boston theater maven, I figured any production that’s endured 55 years deserves attendance. And from the perspective that, “this is something everyone should experience,” I recommend Black Nativity.

The singing is glorious. Simply glorious. And there’s plenty of it. Twenty musical numbers in all. Every traditional carol is rendered in a unique way; you mine new meaning from “Away in a Manger” and “O Come All Ye Faithful.” Yet there are many more songs that were fresh to me, and all are uplifting.

The costumes are very effective: simple white robes, with dazzling gold bodices. The percussionists are terrific. The dancing, to be honest, is less impressive, though the main dance feat, of Mary giving birth, is a gripping choreography that was powerfully manifested at the performance I attended (Black Nativity has rotating cast for many roles). The narration is lyrical; the more Langston Hughes strays from scripture and speaks in authentic voice, the more I appreciated the storytelling.

There were two big-time surprises (for me) in the production. First, after Mary’s incredible birth dance, she and Joseph come forward with a babe in a cradle. A live baby! I was captivated, and enchanted. When the babe fussed just a bit, Mary lifted him up and nursed him. Turns out, the woman playing Mary that night has a four-month-old baby, who now has a stage credit.

The second surprise came late. I figured that the three strong-voiced men who lead many of the musical numbers would be the wise men. Oh, no. The wise men were new actors descended straight out of RuPaul, swishing their way across the stage in sparkly, flamboyant robes that they toss about with drag enthusiasm. They create a striking contrast to the overall placidity of the pageant. But they’re fun!

The most disappointing aspect of the show is the venue. Emerson Paramount Main Stage is simply too big to fill for a three-week run. I saw the show on a freezing cold Thursday night, when the audience of maybe 150 scarcely populated the place. For many years Black Nativity was performed at Tremont Temple, and it would resonate better in a smaller theater or church.

In 2025, Black Nativity is hardly the radical theatrical was in 1961. It is now a period piece. But one worth preserving, and seeing. So prove me wrong – go buy tickets and sell out the Emerson Paramount this weekend.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

What We Assume in a Name

Ten years ago, I showed up at Bruce’s apartment in Atlanta. I was surprised to discover my couchsurfing host was African American. Yet, when I had a medical appointment with a guy named Kevin last week, I fully anticipated he’d be Asian-American.

Why is it that I’m surprised when an African-American man has a Scottish first name, but not when an Asian-American answers to an Irish one? The reason, I suppose, is due to our presumptions around name origins, and our expectations of how close people hold to monikers that reflect their own ancestral traditions.

The origins of people’s first names generally fall into three categories.

First, there are names so common they’ve lost geographic specificity. John, Bob, Steve…and Paul… are so ubiquitous that they don’t reveal anything about the person’s familial tree. Scratch the surface, of course, and that notion proves false. The most common first names in the USA are rooted in Anglo-Saxon and Biblical tradition. According to the Social Security Administration, the ten most popular boy’s names in 2024 were: Liam, Noah, Oliver, Theodore, James, Henry, Mateo, Elijah, Lucas, and William. More than half of them have Biblical origin; more than half maintain a primarily association with the British Isles (though several are rooted in Greek or early German). Despite their Anglo-Biblical bent, these names are so broadly distributed in American society, we don’t conjure much specificity before a first-time encounter with a John or a Jim.

Second are the names of recognizable origin that have leaked beyond their native geography. Many Irish names fall into this category. Sean, Colin, Liam are all Irish, yet it’s not unusual to meet guys with those names of divergent ancestry. When I meet an Otto, my mind registers, “Scandinavian,” while Salvador clicks, “Italian.” Still, those names aren’t stuck in one track.

Finally, there are the names that are stuck in a track. Akeem or D’Andre brings an African-American to mind, while Grosvenor or Archibald is full-on English. This also applies to linguistic variations of Biblical names. Pablo evokes more preconceptions than Paul; Pierre more than Peter.

Our presumptions about given names certainly play a part in our preconceptions, but how closely people align their children’s names with ancestry is an equally important component. I know Asian-American immigrants named Daniel, Robert, and Will. It is so common for Asian immigrants to take on traditional American names when they land on these shores, keeping a traditional Chinese or Korean name is the rarity. In a different vein, immigrants from Africa and the Middle East are much inclined to bestow historic names on their children. When I’m about to meet a Devonte or an Abdul, I have a stronger image in my head than when anticipating meeting a George or a Fred.

Am I being prejudiced? Certainly someone can accuse me of that, though every single one of us creates pictures in our heads before we meet anyone. The picture is based on the information we have at hand. Stereotype? For sure. But stereotypes don’t come from nowhere. Given little information, we tend to render our fellow man in broad strokes. The challenge is to see him as an individual, when we finally meet.

So it’s really no surprise that I imagined Kevin might be Asian-American. Our country is full of medical professionals who’ve adopted names easy to many American ears. But how in the world did Bruce get his name? “My mother gave all of us simple, British names,” he told me. “She did not want people to make assumptions about us, or our race, before they even saw us.” Whether you think Bruce’s mother’s concern is valuable or misplaced, I have to admit, her objective was achieved. I’ll always remember my first and only Black Bruce as a distinct individual.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | 2 Comments

Fleeting Fashions Leave an Ugly Footprint

Kendrick Lamar and dancers at Super Bowl. Photo courtesy NPR.

I caught Kendrick Lamar’s halftime show at the Super Bowl last year. I saw a guy in jeans and a jacket, with backup dancers wearing red, white and blue shirts.

Apparently, I missed a lot. Lamar’s $1200 jeans, design from Celine, triggered a five thousand percent bump in internet searches for “flared jeans.” Meanwhile, Uniglo boasted that the white T-shirts the back-ups wore were their U AIRism Cotton Oversized T-shirts. They retail for $20. Though to me, they look just like the ones at Target that come in a package of three for ten bucks.

Clearly, I know nothing of fashion, or the power of media persuasion. This comes as no surprise to anyone who knows me. Paul Fallon’s fashion look is easy to describe. All solid colors. Shorts until Thanksgiving. Skechers Vigor 3.0 on my feet. A hat on my head. Multiple pairs of gloves. Nothing new.

Like most people, my fashion attributes are tied to fundamental parts of my identity. First, I am color blind, so solid colors are easier to coordinate than stripes or patterns. My primary mode of travel is bicycle, and shorts are more accommodating than long pants. Shoes are the bulkiest item to stuff into a pannier, so I found one comfortable shoe that accommodates my wide feet and I wear it everywhere. No matter where I go, I never pack a second pair. I’m balding, so a hat is imperative. The coldest part of any cyclist is his hands, thus a variety of gloves for all conditions. Finally, since I’m the same size I was in college and possess both a big closet and severe eco-frugality, I have clothes from thirty, forty, even fifty years ago that still fit. So why buy anything new?

I’m a poor prospect for as $20 T-shirt, and would never even look at a $1200 pair of jeans. But for some reason, I savor The New Yorker fashion issues. Recently, Lauren Collins’ September 22, 2025 article about Uniqlo made my head spin at the tentacles the world of so-called fashion spreads across our planet.

Ms. Collins writes, “Uniglo is the universal donor of fashion, intended to go with any lifestyle or aesthetic.” The clothes seem innocuous enough to support that statement; they strike me as basic and bland. but we really ought to tack an additional phrase to that assertion, …any lifestyle or aesthetic rooted in consumption. Our world is so consumed with consuming stuff that we take constant consumption as a given.

The ten-page Uniqlo spread, like so much of fashion, is mostly puff. The Japanese company in bald pursuit of global dominance in selling clothes is compared to Ikea in its ubiquity. The article applauds the company for designing for real-size humans, and explains how it only produces clothing in colors that complement a full range of skin ones. A kumbaya spirit cloaks the entire enterprise.

There is one paragraph, however, that reveals the underbelly of all this bonhomie. “The ecological implications of manufacturing at this scale are staggering…more than a decade ago, when the company had less than half the stores it has now, it boasted of producing six hundred million items a year.” These days, Uniqlo won’t even publish that number, so it must be truly damning.

According to Vogue, Americans buy, on average, 53 garments every year. Some estimates go as high as 68 per year. Either number is ridiculously high, given that we buy twice as many clothes annually as we did in 2000, and wear most items no more than three times. The world is awash in clothes, and Uniqlo’s pretty self-portrait as a company that is both sustainable and on a march of ever-expansion is both disingenuous and impossible.

My closet.

I understand that fashion is one way in which we humans differentiate ourselves (even if that assertion contradicts Uniqlo’s uniformity). My own threadbare preppy look, however drab, accurately reflects how I choose to present myself to the world. But why are most people’s presentation so fleeting?:How many people who purchased $1200 Kendrick-Lamar-wanna-be jeans (or the many lesser priced knockoffs that flooded the market post-Super Bowl) are still parading our city streets?

I didn’t have to succumb to the trend, because I already have a pair of flair-bottom Lucky jeans circa 1970-something, pre-worn, a little tattered. Who knew my wardrobe was so cool?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

What Do We Mean When We Say, “I Love My Country”

Ronny Chieng’s Netflix comedy special, “Love to Hate It” is a biting hour political satire worthy of The Daily Show correspondent. The humor is rooted in dichotomy rather than punch lines, and though it leans left, Ronny strikes at the absurdities that pock both sides of our political divide. However, unlike most comedy, which amuses and then flies out of my brain, “Love to Hate It” left me puzzling over some fundamental questions of a citizen’s relationship to their country.

“I love my country. I would die for my country.” Ronny parodies the blind patriotism of the right. Then he skewers it.

First, from an oblique angle. “What do we do for things we love? First off, we give them money.” Ronny lists all the things we love and support: young children, aging parents, sporting events, favorite charities. When we love something, we invest in it. So why, when it comes to the right, do they proclaim a deep love of country, yet disdain having to pay taxes to support it?

He lets that discrepancy hang in the air before tackling the deeper contradiction. “I love my country. I would die for my country.” Really? Who does that serve? If you love your country, wouldn’t you want to be around, to nourish it? Then Ronny riffs on the various challenges facing the US and realizes that what we really need to maintain our edge in the world is a more technically adept workforce. We don’t need people to die for our country. We need people to learn math. But no one has said, “I love my country. I will learn multi-variable calculus for my country.”

Chieng’s delivery of these ideas is much funnier than my writing about them. And the humor is underscored by his essential Asian immigrant perspective that can find parity between mastering math and offering oneself up in nation-affirming war. For that is what Americans truly mean when they say, “I love my country. I would die for my country.” They mean they would die in a war defending our country. Although the notion of ‘defending’ our country is too often writ broad, since virtually all of our wars take place on someone else’s soil.

I love my country, but I would not die for my country. Because I’m a pacifist. Because all wars destroy more than they construct. Because my highest and best contribution to my country is not dying for it; it’s living, constructively, sustainably, resiliently, within its extents.

I may not be the most patriotic person in America, but I am the most patriotic person I know. I pay my taxes, without any fudging, despite how much I despise our Defense budget, and I volunteer as a tax preparer to assist others in paying their dues. I vote in every election, and actually work at my local poll. As a young man I served my country as a VISTA Volunteer; now I help newcomers acclimate to our country by tutoring immigrants in English.

These tangible examples of loving my country are augmented by the extensive ways I’ve met my fellow Americans, listened to their points-of-view, and tried to understand them, no matter how alien they stray from my personal experience. I’ve been to more cities and towns in the US of A than anyone I know, and I relish every place I’ve visited, every person I’ve met. The great benefit of coming-of-age in Oklahoma and being adult in Massachusetts is that I’ve lived both sides of our political divide, and hold some appreciation, and disdain, for each perspective.

So what does it mean to say, “I love my country?” Does it mean you love the land: the purple mountains; the fruited plains? Does it mean you love the people: tailored New York bankers and overalled soybean farmers? Does it mean you love your tribe, the community of folks you call home? Or does it mean, as it does for me, that you love the ideals upon which our nation was founded, however short we perpetually fall in striving to achieve them?

If you’re like me, you demonstrate your love of country, not by dying for it. Rather, by working every day to reach for the lofty goals of a democratic nation in which every person has equal opportunity to reach their full potential.

As we approach Thanksgiving, and we reflect upon what we’re thankful for, I hope everyone takes a moment to consider how you love our country, and how your actions reflect that affection.

Portion of the painting, Freedom from Want by Norman Rockwell

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Not Much Fun at Fun Home, But Terrific Theater

Fun Home

The Huntington

November 14 – December 14, 2025

Music by Jeanine Tesori

Book and Lyrics by Lisa Kron

Directed by Logan Ellis

Lyla Randall as Young Alison and Sarah Bockel as Alison. All photos by Marc J. Franklin

The Huntington’s production of Fun Home hits all the right notes and delivers the emotional wallop this tragicomedy deserves.

Fun Home, winner of five Tony Awards for 2013, is based on the graphic novel by Alison Bechdel. I’m not sure why it’s called a novel when the story so closely resembles her life. In fact, three different actors play a character named Alison Bechdel at three different stages of development, often all three on stage at the same time.

The play starts with forty-something Alison, a lesbian cartoonist, light years away from her rural Pennsylvania roots, trying to make sense, graphically and emotionally, of her deceased father. Deceased is too polite a word. Right off we learn that Bruce Bechdel kills himself when Alison, the oldest of four children, is in college.

Early on, the play is schizophrenic, as befits life in Fun Home. Bruce is a prickly dad; an historic house renovator; a high school English teacher; and owner of Bechdel Funeral Home, from which the play’s abbreviated title is derived. Sometimes Fun Home is actually fun, but most of the time it’s a Victorian monstrosity teetering on edge, as the family tries, always tries (and always fails) to meet the unreasonable expectations of a man whose internal conflictions turn cruel toward those he supposedly loves. Early scenes ricochet between family love and family disasters, with Young Alison and her three childhood siblings singing and dancing and hamming it up in the face of trauma.

Medium Alison goes to college. Discovers she’s gay. Treats the audience to the most hysterical coming out scene ever. Then tells her parents she’s gay. No response. Followed by weird response, as Alison’s mother reveals that Bruce has had male lovers throughout their entire marriage. Even before. When Alison returns home, with girlfriend Joan, she anticipates a warm talk with her dad, now that they share being gay in common. Needless to say, that’s not what happens.

Sushma Saha as Joan and Maya Jacobson as Medium Alison

Enough of the downer plot. Did I mention Fun Home’s a musical? Really, it is. Though, to be honest, the music’s not all that memorable. Wherein lies the strength of The Huntington’s production. The music is there, and the production numbers with the kiddies are welcome palate cleansers, but Huntington’s focus is on the emotional entanglement between father, mother, and daughter. I’ve seen other productions of Fun Home, but none that left me so distraught at play’s end; so in awe of the human capacity to twist and thwart those we love.

The Huntington set is a remarkable collection of moving parts that assemble and dissemble Fun Home and other locales. I couldn’t figure out the point of the bucolic tree background, nor why the band is framed in a floating sky. Odd, but not necessarily bad.

Cast wise, some of the secondary roles deserve more heft. Nevertheless, the three Alison’s carry the show as a perfect trio. Maya Jacobson as Middle Alison is a particular standout. Jennifer Ellis is also noteworthy in maintaining tight composure as the long-suffering wife. She finally gets her own voice in “Days of Days,” which I find the most affecting song in the show.

Jennifer Ellis as Helen Bechdel

As to Nick Duckart as Bruce Bechdel, I must confess that I dislike the father in this play so much, I can’t imagine praising anyone in the role. I know a thing or two about growing up under a volatile father. Also about being drawn to men yet marrying a woman, fathering children, coming out, and raising them. It’s not a clear path, but it can be navigated with dignity for everyone involved. When I watch Bruce pick up his former students, and leave his young children alone at night to prowl, my skin crawls. When I see him throw himself in front of a truck, I feel no empathy. Rather, I see the commitments—wife and children—abandoned by this needling, narcissistic man. When I see Alison, so many years later, still trying to reconcile her relationship with the man, I want to scream, “The asshole isn’t worth the effort.” But then I realize that he’s her father, and don’t each of us try to reconcile the sins and mistakes of our own parents, no matter how dastardly they might have been.

You don’t need to be a gay dad, or even be gay yourself, to savor the rich emotional journey into Fun Home. You just need to get to The Huntington by December 14 and be prepared for a deep dive into perdition and forgiveness.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Sorry Senator Markey—It’s Time to Go

Ed Markey’s Official Photo – taken in 2013

Ed Markey’s a great guy. As honest as a politician can be, a faithful public servant, a progressive voice from the bluest state in America. He’s running for reelection to the U.S Senate in 2026, yet it’s time for him to go. Why? Because the guy will be eighty years old next year, and no one that age should be entrusted with a six-year term for any office. Period.

Call me ageist, but I’ll lean into the science on this. There’s a natural arc to the age of man, and to every particular man. We ramp up in intelligence and physical capability, hitting our physical peak around age 28, and our mental peak about the same time.

It’s no secret that most great scientific discoveries are made by younger folk. We are accustomed to seeing Einstein as a wizened old man with a mass of great white hair, but when he published his theory of relativity, at age 26, he had close cropped, dark hair and a neat moustache. Einstein added much to world throughout his life, but his truly bold contribution happened when he was young. Similarly, Louis Pasteur was 35 when he introduced the theory of fermentation, Thomas Edison 32 when he invented the incandescent light bulb, Neils Bohr a mere 28 when he described the components of the atom. Each continued to develop and refine, but their novel thinking happened when they were young.

Politicians are not scientists. Their contributions to the world do not rely on an “Aha!” moment. Their skills are better tuned to the wisdom of age. For some reason, as we have less time on this planet, we tend to become more patient; we gain longer perspective. Those are admirable traits in a politician. Thus we find many effective politicians in their 50’s, 60’s, perhaps even into their 70’s,

Ed Markey in 2025. Courtesy WGBH.

But at some point, the notion that age connotes wisdom runs smack into the reality that age creates senility. I’m a pretty sharp guy. I’ve tackled some challenging puzzles in my day. At age 70, I’m a full decade younger than Senator Markey. Sure, I forget names. But I also get the occasional brain fog, I miss important connections. I don’t have any diagnosed condition: I’m just getting old. I still have good ideas and well-founded opinions, but I know they’re not as sharp as those I held as a younger man. Fortunately, for me and everyone else, I’m aging gracefully out of any leadership role. No one calls on me to make important decisions anymore.

Democrats love to proclaim themselves the party of science. Except, of course, when the science doesn’t fit their point-of-view. There is no doubt that Ed Markey is less sharp than he was ten years ago, even twenty years ago. That’s not prejudice—it’s science. Time for him to retire graciously, bask on his well-earned laurels, and hand the reins of advocating progressive ideals to a younger person.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Lizard Boy: Speakeasy’s Superpower!

Lizard Boy

Speakeasy Stage Boston

October 24 – November 22, 2025

Book, Music, and Lyrics by Justin Huertas

Directed by Lyndsay Allyn Cox

Keiji Ishiguri as Lizard Boy. All photos by Benjamin Rose Photography.

Twenty years ago, Mount St. Helens erupted, a dinosaur spewed forth, landed at a nearby playground, was beheaded by EMT’s, and the blood that spewed onto five children gave them various superpowers. All except Trevor, who was doused with the most blood. He simply turned green.

If that premise inspires or delights you, you’re going to love Lizard Boy as much as I do. If the comic book silliness is too much for you, the times are ripe to snuggle up with George Orwell. But…you’ll be missing so much fun.

Trevor (Keiji Ishiguri) is a shut-in, embarrassed by his green skin, except for one night a year, when Monsterfest brings out all sorts, and he can blend into the crowd. He hooks up with Cary (Peter DiMaggio), though it takes the two some time to navigate the minefield of hook-up versus date. Eventually, they go clubbing and hear a singer (Chelsea Nectow), who’s the Siren of Trevor’s bad dreams. The trio are uniformly good. Chelsea is a stand-out. All Joan Jett and Grace Slick, until she releases her Siren scat across the horizon of heaven.

I won’t try to relay any more plot because, frankly, I didn’t understand what was going on much of the time. But really, I didn’t care. Comic books are about color, action, and splash. So too, is Lizard Boy.

Lyndsay Allyn Cox’s direction, energetic to the precipice of frenzy, perfectly suits the tenor of the play. There are only three actors, doubling as the musicians, but they are everywhere, all the time, generating the presence of a complete ensemble. There’s piano and guitar, as in any indie-rock musical, but also ukulele and kazoo and cello. Yes…cello! The percussion is as surprising as it is insistent. The rubber hammer against the steamer trunk is a reliable motif, but when Siren angrily bangs the guitar case on the floor to the beat…I thought it was just hysterical.

The interaction of cast and music and instrument reaches a crescendo in a superbly crafted choreography when the action peaks – just as the world is about to end!!! Holy tambourine, Bat Man! I never crossed such a violent cello!

The cast of Lizard Boy

The mere title, Lizard Boy, conjures memories of Speakeasy triumphs past. The 2003 production of Bat Boy: the Musical, (which this longtime Speakeasy patron considers its finest show ever) had its run extended I can’t recall how many times. The similarities between the two shows go beyond the title word, Boy. Each displays the plight of a human creature augmented by extra-species characteristics. Each title character considers their difference their weakness and futilely strives to fit in, until they realize that their difference is their strength. Or, as Trevor finally sings in comic book lingo, “My difference is my superpower!”

Surprise, surprise, the world doesn’t end. All are saved. Hope blossoms. And you’ve just enjoyed a marvelous ninety-minutes escaping the Orwellian shadows of present times.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

A Heartwarming Story of Hunger and Generosity

In September, my brother and sister and her husband held a mini-reunion over a nine-day visit to Ireland. I’d been to Ireland before (my daughter and I explored the lesser travelled precincts of Donegal back in 2007), so I knew the joys of visiting the Emerald Isle. The people are so grand!

This trip was different in that it was a guided tour—my first. It could have been titled ‘Ireland 101’ as it hit the usual high points: Dublin; Cork; Killarney; Galway; Blarney Castle; Ring of Kerry; Cliffs of Moher; Jameson; Guinness. Basically, a photo op at every calendar image of Ireland. I had my doubts about being part of a tour bus herd, but the tour proved to be fantastic: excellent food and digs; nice fellow travelers; terrific guides.

Cork City Jail

Constance, our guide in Cork, was particularly engaging. After motoring through the city and making a surprisingly interesting visit to the 19th century city jail (Cork was a rough place back then, and tales of the jail’s inhabitants are remarkable), we headed to neighboring Midleton to see the Jameson Distillery. Just before the highway exit, Constance pointed out an unusual sculpture, barely visible through the trees. We arrived in Midleton with a free hour for lunch, so I decided to hoof it back to that sculpture and savor the endearing backstory Constance had told.

When you visit Philadelphia, you get steeped in the Declaration of Independence. In Cambodia, you must go to the killing fields. In Paris you cannot escape Hausman’s boulevards. In Ireland, you have to confront the Great Hunger. More than a million Irish died in the 1840’s. Even more emigrated. Within a decade the population of Ireland was cut in half, only recently returned to pre-famine numbers. The Great Hunger is a tale of blighted potatoes, English cruelty, and the limits of the land to provide. And though it occurred almost two hundred years ago, it is ever present in the Irish psyche. Famine is the benchmark of their national character.

Kindred Spirits

Here is the beautiful story that Constance told.

In 1847, at the height of the Great Hunger, the people of Ireland received a notable gift from an unlikely source. The Choctaw Nation knew a thing or two about hunger, having traversed the Trail of Tears from Alabama and Mississippi to Oklahoma during the 1830’s, experiencing decimation, disease, and famine along the way. When they learned of the famine in Ireland, the Choctaw took up collection and sent $170 to aid the Irish. A huge gift at the time, from one impoverished people to another.

The Irish have long memories of hunger and of generosity. In the 21st century, the Midleton Town Council commissioned Kindred Spirits, the monumental sculpture by Alex Pentek, in appreciation for the Choctaw gift. A delegation of twenty Choctaw travelled to Midleton to attend the sculpture’s unveiling in 2017.

How often in life is the assistance we desperately need delivered by those who, seemingly, have so little to offer.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

What Makes Something a Play?

Sardines (a comedy about death)

Written by Chris Grace

Directed by Eric Michaud

The Huntington

October 11 to November 16, 2025

Way back in the last century, when people appreciated Woody Allen without reservation, I saw all his movies. I loved the sophisticated banter, the underlying expectation that out of seemingly ordinary interactions among searching souls, deep meaning would arise. I sat enraptured, until the white on black end credits rolled. Then I’d feel mildly deflated. Not because the movie ended. Rather because, the depth of meaning anticipated never came to fruition.

The meaning of life celebrated at the end of Woody’s films always struck me as trite, all too often the ambiguous smile of a blossoming young woman. I suppose the triviality was the point. Unless you attach yourself to a particular religion, any of which are insistent upon providing a full-fleshed meaning of life, there really isn’t much point beyond we’re here, so let’s give it a go.

I never revealed my doubts about Woody Allen films. At first because I was a young Turk and he was—WOODY ALLEN—which rendered my reservations discardable. Later, when he became socially suspect, my misgivings became irrelevant.

So I was happy, and hopeful, when Chris Grace shared the same sentiments about Woody Allen movies early on in his one-man show, Sardines (a comedy about death). Further titillating, Mr. Grace announced that by the end of his show, he would make deeper reflections upon the meaning of life.

Sardines is a sixty-minute, one person show performed on a stage with a lovely velvet curtain backdrop and a white stool as the sole prop. Hardly the kind of set for which the opulent Huntington is known. Mr. Grace performs for an animated sixty minutes, all around the stool.


The play is purportedly about death, as its framing device is a family photo from the early 2010’s (which we are engaged to imagine) from which five people have since died. This leads to funny anecdotes of loved ones we’ll never know and clever witticisms about the person Chris Grace. As a comedy, it strikes a chord. As a meditation on death (and therefore the meaning of life), Sardines is mighty lite.

What Sardines did trigger in me, was a meditation on what makes something a play. Plays have existed for thousands of years. There are certain common features among them, though perhaps the only hard and fast rule is that plays are performed live while viewed by a live audience. Plays follow a script; each performance mirrors others. They usually tell a story. They often impart a moral, or at least project a moral perspective. They are sometimes funny, sometimes tragic, occasionally both.

Until the advent of the moving picture, plays were the primary narrative form of collective entertainment. But in these days of movies, television, and TikTok, there are so many ways to follow a story, laugh at a comedy, or sob at tragedy. Why should someone leave their home screen, trudge to a theater, pay gobs of money for a ticket, to sit among potentially infectious people? Because there is a magic in live theater that can only be derived from being present, in-person, among others; watching others, in the flesh, wrangle with the mystery of being human. No image on a screen can induce the same passion, or pathos, as great theater.

Not every live performance is a play. Live music has an aura no recording can touch. Ditto live dance. People still go to live lectures and book readings, in search of the intangible quality of being present together. More and more Boston’s theaters are booked with stand-up comedians. People pay hundreds per ticket to sit in the audience of what will be aired on Netflix, next month, for a paltry subscription price. It’s heartwarming that people still crave the live experience, when the filmed substitute is so much more readily available.

The Huntington produces seven shows a year, a huge undertaking for any theater company. The theater maven in me would like each of them to be full productions of timeless classics and new plays that touch my soul. By that definition, Sardines feels like a cop out. I can appreciate that The Huntington is striving to expand our notion of what constitutes performance art worthy of their stages. But Sardines so perfectly fits into the existing model of a streamed comedy special, I am hard pressed to understand why it’s imperative to see it live. I think Chris Grace should have performed it for two nights at the Wilbur, and then we could all watch it from home.

As the sixty minutes whittled to its end, did Mr. Grace provide more depth of meaning to death than Woody Allen? I will let those of you who go see Sardines decide for yourselves. For me, as I left the theater I reckoned the remainder of my week—tutoring a Haitian immigrant struggling with our language, dinner with my Louise Eustace Fellows, participating in a medical research study—and decided I had enough reason to shoulder on.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

MIT’s Response to President Trump’s Proposed Contract

As an alum, I was happy to receive a copy of the letter (October 10, 2025) that MIT President Sally Kornbluth sent to US Education Secretary Linda McMahon. As a concerned American, I am happy to share the letter with my readers. May it offer us strength and guidance to stand up for our nation’s core values.

Dear Madam Secretary,

I write in response to your letter of October 1, inviting MIT to review a “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education.” I acknowledge the vital importance of these matters.

I appreciated the chance to meet with you earlier this year to discuss the priorities we share for American higher education.

As we discussed, the Institute’s mission of service to the nation directs us to advance knowledge, educate students and bring knowledge to bear on the world’s great challenges. We do that in line with a clear set of values, with excellence above all. Some practical examples:

MIT prides itself on rewarding merit. Students, faculty and staff succeed here based on the strength of their talent, ideas and hard work. For instance, the Institute was the first to reinstate the SAT/ACT requirement after the pandemic. And MIT has never had legacy preferences in admissions.

MIT opens its doors to the most talented students regardless of their family’s finances. Admissions are need-blind. Incoming undergraduates whose families earn less than $200,000 a year pay no tuition. Nearly 88% of our last graduating class left MIT with no debt for their education. We make a wealth of free courses and low-cost certificates available to any American with an internet connection. Of the undergraduate degrees we award, 94% are in STEM fields. And in service to the nation, we cap enrollment of international undergraduates at roughly 10%.

We value free expression, as clearly described in the MIT Statement on Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom. We must hear facts and opinions we don’t like – and engage respectfully with those with whom we disagree.

These values and other MIT practices meet or exceed many standards outlined in the document you sent. We freely choose these values because they’re right, and we live by them because they support our mission – work of immense value to the prosperity, competitiveness, health and security of the United States. And of course, MIT abides by the law.

The document also includes principles with which we disagree, including those that would restrict freedom of expression and our independence as an institution. And fundamentally, the premise of the document is inconsistent with our core belief that scientific funding should be based on scientific merit alone.

In our view, America’s leadership in science and innovation depends on independent thinking and open competition for excellence. In that free marketplace of ideas, the people of MIT gladly compete with the very best, without preferences. Therefore, with respect, we cannot support the proposed approach to addressing the issues facing higher education.

As you know, MIT’s record of service to the nation is long and enduring. Eight decades ago, MIT leaders helped invent a scientific partnership between America’s research universities and the U.S. government that has delivered extraordinary benefits for the American people. We continue to believe in the power of this partnership to serve the nation.

Sincerely,


Sally Kornbluth

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment