Saturday, December 27, 2008

Dorfman On Pinter

When Pinter died, I couldn't find anything cogent to say. I enjoyed some of his plays, and others were frankly not that boring--granted, I haven't seen any of them staged (except scenes from Betrayal), but the only one which on the page really sparked my interest was The Birthday Party. Still, my personal interest nonwithstanding, I wouldn't say he's overrated or that he doesn't deserve his position in the Anglo-Saxon canon... just that he's not my cup of tea.

That didn't seem like much worth remarking at the time, but now I mention it because there's a much more fitting eulogy of him that you should read, (via The Playgoer) by Ariel Dorfman who wrote Death And The Maiden:

...all of these lessons in dramatic craftsmanship pale next to what he taught me about human existence and about -- dare I say the word? -- politics.

From that very first play, I felt that Harold Pinter was unfolding a world that was deeply political. Not in the overt sense (as would happen later, beginning in the early '80s, in several of his dramas) that his creatures were affected by who governed them, whether this or that man controlled the army or gave orders to the police. No, these figments of Pinter's psyche, at least back in the '60s, did not care to dispute the public arena, were uninterested in changing the world for better or for worse. They were, on the contrary, sad citizens of intimacy, obsessed only with their own survival.

And yet, by trapping us inside the lives of those men and women, Pinter was revealing the many gradations and degradations of power with a starkness I had not noticed before in other authors who were supposedly dedicated to examining or denouncing contingent politics. All power, all domination and liberation started there, he seemed to be saying, in those claustrophobic rooms where each word counts, each slight utterance needs to be accounted for, is paid for in some secret currency of hope or suffering. You want to free the world, humanity, from oppression? Look inside, look sideways, look at the hidden violence of language. Never forget that it is in language where the other parallel violence, the cruelty exercised on the body, originates.

Two men waiting in a basement to kill somebody [The Dumbwaiter]. An old tramp laying claim to a derelict room [The Caretaker]. A birthday celebration interrupted by intruders [The Birthday Party]. A woman afraid of being evicted [The Room]. A son who comes home to his dysfunctional family accompanied by an enigmatic wife [The Homecoming]. Primal scenes of betrayal that could be transpiring anywhere on our planet, embodiments of a vast and disquieting landscape of dread, the precarious condition inhabited by most of contemporary humanity, the neglected narrative of the 20th century.


What Dorfman (who knows a thing or two about politics, oppression, etc.) is putting his finger on is what I like about The Birthday Party and am less enamored of in his other plays: this incredible sense of necessity in each line. It is very easy to speak; it is difficult to make each word count. Of late, I continually discover the quality of babbling in some of my plays--in many plays--and my most successful playwriting experiences have been when I attempt to write a play with no words (I always fail, but that attempt and failure is what creates only the words which are necessary).

What I went to the Czech Republic to try and find was a theater where every word said and every thought examined was desperate and necessary, because in a country which suffers censorship and oppression, nobody would dare say the words that aren't necessary unless they have the political sanction. So whereas the politically sanctioned theater is babble with nothing in its core, the illegal theater is stripped of everything pointless, and becomes a sharply defined play. It becomes minimalist--not as a thought experiment, but from the necessity of minimalism. Since minimalism is a favorite form of mine to explore, I wanted to see its wellsprings: why someone must be minimalist, and what that world was like.

Unfortunately, the Czech Republic failed to preserve such a state--if such an idyllic minimalist world ever truly existed--and I never worked up the courage to risk a journey into Belarus (the only place in Europe where such a state of oppression can still be found).

The necessary oppression can be found in some of the great minimal works, though. If you read Beckett, you find them in that state of minimalizing oppression: not an oppression due to tyrant (arguably, one might posit Godot in that position, but his absence makes that weak), but an oppression due to circumstance. They are oppressed by Waiting itself. So too are Ham and Clov oppressed by their circumstances in Endgame; and that oppression is in all of Pinter's plays. I'm currently working on expanding my project (at the time titled "The End") for the Experimental Theater Wing, and that was my experiment: the create the oppressive scenario that should stifle all language.

What Pinter discovered, and Dorfman discovered, and Beckett and I discover too is that no matter what the oppression, some spark of life fights that oppressive death until the last moment possible--and that spark of life is what is important, what we're trying to explore, and delve into.

Wednesday, December 24, 2008

Inspired By Andrew Sullivan: Awards!

I'm a big fan of Andrew Sullivan's blog, so in the coming year, I'm going to hold my own little miniature awards ceremony over the course of the year. So, after thinking for a bit, I'm coining these following awards to be looking for in the near future. A lot of these are hyphenated because I couldn't choose between two people to name the award after. Obviously, this year's winners are the people who gave the name to the award--retroactively honoring people from years past, as well as for this year.

JEFFERSON-CUNNINGHAM AWARD--The award for the grossest example of sheer greed and corruption. It needs to be something cartoonishly corrupt, and just lacking in any artifice. If you laundered the money, it doesn't count. It needs to be a yacht or just money stuffed in your freezer.

BLAGOJEVICH-SPITZER AWARD--This is not just an award for gross corruption; this is an award for brazen, Greco-tragic hubris, with a touch of dramatic irony. Kudos points to being convicted on your birthday, to have your downfall be exactly what you fought so hard to prevent, or wonderful soundbites like "Go ahead, tap my phones," or "It sucks. I used to be Governor of New York." Try to quote Kipling while protesting your innocence, or--please--get your wife to stand next to you while you apologize to the public for cheating on your wife.

CRAMER AWARD--Not just the clumsiness of Kramer, the hapless neighbor from Seinfeld: this is when you are in a position where people are relying on you to predict the future, and you fail. Not like, a little bit. I'm talking "epic fail." Like telling people who want to pull out of Bear Stearns that they're stupid, only to have Bear Sterns collapse six days later.

CHENEY-BURESS AWARD--Did you just say that? Did that just happen? The Vice President simply could not have shot an old man in the face. What? The old man apologized? Wait, did you just shoot yourself in the leg with a gun? It was tucked into your sweat pants, you say? I simply refuse to believe that these events happened. Also: there's a pair of shoes that bear this award well.

RUMSFELD-BUSH AWARD--For astounding lack of empathy. Did you tell the people of New Orleans that you're going to rebuild Trent Lott's house? Is Iraq not on fire if you fly over it? "Stuff happens" sound familiar to you? Then you might be in line for a Rumsfeld-Bush Award!

CHAMBLISS AWARD--When I told my roommate that there was a politician who accused his opponent for being soft on crimes against children, when that opponent had championed tougher laws against crimes against children because his child had been kidnapped, and that the same politician had accused another opponent of being unpatriotic when that opponent had left limbs behind in Vietnam... my roommate said, "Well, I'll say one thing about this guy. He doesn't want to make things easy for himself. He really like to fight those uphill battles." So the Chambliss Award is intended for those who demonstrate fantastically self-destructive (and ironic) tactics, whether it's putting Joe The Plumber on the campaign trail, or letting Joe The Biden open his mouth.

FINLEY AWARD--Sometimes Free Speech means that someone is going to do something stupid or derogatory and call it art. They'll use "anything can be art" as a free pass to say "everything is art." They'll say that form is unimportant, education is unimportant (while drawing salary as a teacher). They'll mock people who don't agree with them as stupid. These people are what gives theater a bad name.

And now for the positive awards:

SHINSEKI-FISHBACK AWARD--It's really depressing that sometimes the greatest heroism is telling the truth. Ian Fishback was concerned that Donald Rumsfeld's statements to the public about torture misrepresented the actions that were occuring to people in custody. When the chain of command failed him, he wrote a letter to John McCain that laid forth his moral objections. Shinseki, at the opposite end of the food chain, was called before Congress in the run-up to the Iraq War. When asked how many troops we'd need, he said several hundred thousand. He was promptly fired. Years later, General Abizaid said, "Upon reflecting, General Shinseki was probably right." Oops. At least we have these people to tell us what's what.

FITZGERALD AWARD--For stunning, non-partisan service. It's very hard to treat both sides of the debate equally because, well, they're not. But if within a few years you take down a high profile Republican and a high profile Democrat, it's clear that you're of the rare breed that sees both sides of the aisle equally. You're there to do your job. Politics be damned.

FEINGOLD AWARD--Opposition to the PATRIOT Act is something that most Congressmen from the left espouse, so much so that you might forget that they all voted for it. Except one man: Russ Feingold. Read his last speech, faced with 96 US Senators who were about to vote the other way. Sometimes it's not easy to be the only guy facing the other way. But history has proven that Feingold's concerns about the PATRIOT Act were not unfounded.

DAISEY-EUSTIS AWARD-- Theater is a broken system in America. It has a lot of problems, whether we're talking about poor pay and job stability for actors or the growing tendency to remount old productions rather than looking for new work. Whether you're a dissident like Mike Daisey asking the hard questions about Theater's future, or an insightful champion of the new generation of talent like Oskar Eustis, it takes gumption to set out there to change the world of theater.

RUSSERT-SULLIVAN AWARD-- It's easy for a news story to fall through the cracks, and unless you've got Lewis Black to catch them for his own segment called "Back In Black," these things can fall away in the ephemeral world of modern news. Whether its torture, or Palin's baby, Andrew Sullivan has a memory like an elephant, and doesn't let things get away. Russert was the same way: he kept his eye on the issues, and (though polite) asked the hard, smart questions. What they share (usually) is a sense of perspective, and a dogged determination to uncover the truth.



Those are the twelve awards. Next year, who'll be on that list? We'll see.

Christmas Eve Thoughts About Theater

Merry Christmas to anyone reading this blog who celebrates. Also, Happy Hannukah to my fellow Jews who are now four days into latkes, driedels, and other arcane artifacts of Judaica.

Just wanted to throw out there that my friend and I have been talking along lines that were started by me and my father about the future of theater. My dad's view (from the perspective of a computer programmer and the founder of a tiny internet startup) is that the problem with theater right now is its inability to scale--there are high costs getting in and an artificially limited return (a 99 seat theater can only make Ticket Sale x 99 x however many nights--and Showcase Code might add further limitations, etc. etc.). His solution, as an internet guy, is to follow the logic that created Theater on the TV and create Theater on the Internet. Richard Foreman tried something like that this month, live-streaming rehearsals of his upcoming play.

There's something to that, and there's something not to that. After all, the one thing the theater has going for it is liveness--which is why I'm objecting to fourth-wall twentieth-century isolated creations (by the way--my own productions so far have failed to do that to a certain extent, although Orchestration was one such experiment--I kicked the audience out of the theater at the end. It made more sense in context). Broadcasting over TV or over the Internet kills that in the same way that the fourth wall does: it crystallizes it, and kills the danger of doing something dangerous.

Of course, Saturday Night Live, Whose Line Is It Anyways, Mock The Week, The Daily Show, The Colbert Report still manage to capture something of that. They have live audiences, and they're responding to their live audiences to allow a bit of chaos.

So that's one route to go, in terms of scaling.

But another place to look is the music industry. Music has two prongs: one is the music itself which, like film, is a recorded product easily distributed; the other is the live performance, the concert. In music both of those scale. Why? Because we in America have a concert-going culture. So local concert halls, if they have a good enough reputation, can count on being full on a Friday night. And they can bring bands on tour.

Why does this system work?

1) Bands are easy to tour: a decent concert hall will have most of the equipment they need, so they just need to bring themselves, their support team, and their instruments.
2) Most bands are not tech heavy or visual heavy--so long as the acoustics are in, the rest of the show is purely their musical talent.
3) Concert halls are simply fun places for young people to be: they can do whatever they like while the music is going on, and they can drink copious amounts of alcohol if they so choose. It's a social event as much as it is a music event.


So if theater ensemble wanted to tour the way bands did, they'd have to do a few things:

1) They'd have to strip away all of the complicated technical elements so as to have the simplest set-up possible.
2) They'd have to have a flexible set-up that doesn't require a formalized system of etiquette.
3) They should be comfortable with an open bar.
4) They'd have to be in conversation with the audience.

Who does this? Improv groups. Jazz ensembles. Rock bands. Stand-up comics. All viable forms of performance. A stand-up comedian does not rely on internet or television broadcasting to survive (although once he becomes successful, this is a viable way of becoming a huge figure). An improv group doesn't need lights and sets to make their comedy funny. And rock bands don't mind trashed audiences. Any theater ensemble that can shed the dead weight of tradition enough will find itself light enough to travel, and light enough to be viable.

Of course, there needs to evolve a system to handle this sort of touring. Small music halls or Improv performance spaces can accommodate other forms of performance, so long as we assure them that it is worth their while.

Monday, December 22, 2008

Global Government.

Matthew Yglesias has a post about Will Marshall's idea for a Global NATO.

I think that, eventually, there will be something like a Global NATO. But not for a long, long, time. You see, history (from my perspective) is the slow unification of small, atomized societies (even as the individuals within those societies seem more atomized because of how large the society they live in is--does that make sense? The whole gets larger but the individual gets more diluted? Eventually, I think, we're going to have a very, very loose global government with a more effective system than the current Global Government (the UN).

But what do we do in the meantime? Well, NATO and the EU are ahead of the game: they've unified Europe. But how did it happen? Well, by the end of the 20th Century, the member states of NATO and the EU had two things in common: very similar forms of government (comparatively; whatever differences in government there are between, say, Poland and Ireland, it pales in comparison to the difference between Communist China and England), and very aligned interests. At the end of the day, all of the states of NATO and the EU stand together or fall together.

Will Marshall seems to believe that we should take all of the countries that have interests aligned with the US/Europe, and put them into a Super-NATO. But the obvious interests we have aligned can't paper over the interests we don't have aligned. That isn't to mean that there are specific issues that Japan and the US butt heads on (no more or less than between France and Germany); it's that certain interests that are very important to Japan and South Korea are considered unimportant to countries like Poland and Italy. To a certain extent, it would be like California weighing in on certain issues that really only matter to New England.

A regionalized system, although imperfect (and in certain areas, doomed to failure) is the beginnings. It is part of the reason that the UN doesn't work.

Suppose NATO and the EU were to create a model for North America. The United States would start to take a greater interest in the way that drug gangs have caused chaos in Mexico; the resources of the NAFTA nations would be greater applied to create peace an stability. Then, say that the OAS bridges the gaps between Latin and South American countries. Suppose the AU slowly develops (over many, many years) into becoming an actual supra-government for Africa, bridging their interests, decreasing wars, increasing train. The Arab League creates a supra-government for the Arab member-states, bridging divisions between Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc. Maybe SEATO would, in a meaningful way, bring the nations of the South East Asia together.

Then we get six or seven region-blocs. Where they cooperate, they could work jointly. And whatever interests they share together, that would be the groundwork for a greater global government; rather than corralling the 192 countries into a global government (or letting five countries decide the fate of the world). The individual countries could also be represented (see: House of Representatives versus Senate).

That's my dream, but I'm warning you I don't see it happening in this half-century. The groundwork might be laid by the end of the century--Turkey and Israel joining the EU, the AU starting to come into its own, China somehow coming to a better relationship with its regional neighbors, NAFTA becoming a more genial organization.

But what I don't think will work is creating axises of opposing interests; some greater NATO linked only by their belief in Democratic Capitalism, and some hodge-podge of Chinese, Iranian, and Russian ally states (mostly rogue states and unstable states whose backers are the Chinese, the Iranians, or the Russians), and then a handful of completely isolated nations.

Sunday, December 21, 2008

The Question Of American Guilt

I was watching Charlie Rose's conversation with Frank Langella and Ron Howard about the upcoming Frost/Nixon. The general flow of the conversation seemed to be about remembering Richard Nixon the human being, the almost Grecian-tragedy figure, steeped in hubris and ambition, who catastrophically fell from grace. And multiple times, Frank Langella (who has the fascinating task of becoming Richard Nixon) says that while he cannot pardon what Nixon did, it is helpful to remind ourselves that we are quick to judge and harsh; that we forget the living flesh human being behind the crimes.

Now, I agree with that. But that does not mean we should let our anger and condemnation of public officials go. Public officials should be treated with little tolerance for their crimes.

I saw a quotation in Time Magazine today that was attributed to Eliot Spitzer. A reporter asked him how he was liking being a contributing writer for Slate.com, and he responded:

"It sucks. I was Governor of New York."

There's a world of pain, and a world of arrogance, contained in those two sentences. But at the same time, what he did is unpardonable. He cannot be rehabilitated into our public office. He broke a public trust, and for that, he suffers the consequence. But we should do well to notice the human being behind the mask.


The question is, what's the point? What's the point in Stone's W. or Frost/Nixon or a billion soul-searching journalist pieces about the life and times of Spitzer, Edwards, Blagojevich, Stevens, Foley, Craig, Abramoff, DeLay, Gonzalez, Cheney, Yoo, Rumsfeld, Kissinger, McNamara, etc. etc. etc.?

If one looks at it once, the message might be, as Frank Langella says, to remember that we judge too harshly. But I disagree with that message. In truth, the message is that we should not forget that people become guilty without looking or acting like the criminals we are used to: the caricaturish images of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, or Idi Amin is not the only face of criminality.

People who commit crimes always believe that what they were doing is right. And some people manage to convince others that what they are doing is right. They slide by on the subjectivity of less clear crimes--crimes of a smaller scale, crimes in the pursuit of good.

And they involve themselves less directly in crime: they fail to speak out; they defend the crimes using statements which, if not untrue, may be dishonest.


At the end of World War Two, Karl Jaspers gave a lecture which came to be published as The Question Of Guilt. In English, you will find this book titled The Question Of German Guilt, but in truth, it is not that. Although in his context (in 1945, addressing a class of Heidelberg students who all served, in various capacities, in the Nazi Military) it bore specific resonance to the fabric of German society, it is true for every society at every moment in history.

For me, I would merely quibble a little with Jaspers on one point: he uses the word "guilt." I would use the word "responsibility." To say that each of us is guilty, to lesser and greater extents, for the war crimes, the corruption, the poverty, etc. is true, but it plays into a tendency to over-criminalize. Guilt is about condemnation; about destruction of character. The guilty are to be cast out.

Some of the people involved in each of these moments of history are guilty. But everyone is responsible. Once you are responsible beyond a certain degree, you are guilty.


Colin Powell is not guilty of war crimes. He did not order nor carry out war crimes. But as an influential and respected member of the Bush Administration, his failure to discover or intervene or warn about war crimes (as well as his complicity in creating an atmosphere where it was possible, inasmuch as he touted the Iraq War) means that he is responsible. He is not as responsible as Donald Rumsfeld, whose signature on the memo detailing what methods of torture are acceptable shows he bears not only responsibility, but guilt.

As the years pass forward from the Bush Administration, we will need to investigate who is responsible, and who is guilty. We will need to look every public figure in the eye and say, "Where were you, and what were you doing? What could you have done?" But in order to do that properly, we need to understand. We need to investigate what the context was, both human and political. They will not absolve of guilt (as Frost/Nixon clearly does not absolve Nixon of Guilt) or of responsibility (which nothing can absolve one of). But they will allow us to judge what we could have done.


I disagree with Karl Jaspers' selection of the word "Guilt" for the title of the lecture, and I disagree with the translator's insistence on the word "German" as a terrible addition. But there is one word in the title which fits like a glove: "Question." Because the point is that this is not an answer: we will not know for certain exactly to what degree President Bush was evil, misled, or apathetic; to what degree it was Cheney or Rumsfeld or whomever that originally conceived of the idea of torture. Responsibility (and guilt) lies both at the top and the bottom of the food chain; it lies both in the Executive and Legislative branches; it lies in the American People who, in 2004, re-elected the President who made it all possible.

It's a question we're going to have to have a mature dialogue about. But that mature dialogue requires the facts, and those facts require the justice system. And those, I believe, require Patrick Fitzgerald appointed to Special Prosecutor.

Friday, December 19, 2008

War Crimes! War Crimes! Read All About It

Nine days ago (apologies for the late post--finished my semester and came back to the United States), the Senate released a bipartisan report from the Judicial Committee (the Levin-McCain Report) alleging that President Bush opened the door to torture and abuse by signing a memorandum that said that the Geneva Conventions did not apply in the fight against al Qaeda. The military, under direction of Donald Rumsfeld, put men unqualified in interrogations in charge of training new interrogators. Rumsfeld then signed a list of torture methods (including waterboarding, which was an executable offense in World War Two). White House Counsel John Yoo wrote a memo creating the legal grounds for ignoring the Geneva Conventions, as did White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales (who called the Geneva Conventions "quaint").

Now what.

It's been eight days since the report. I've heard the blogosphere chattering, but a disgraceful lack of anything official on the subject. After all, the consensus is that the incoming Congress and the incoming Senate are going to have to deal with this subject. I have no clue on how Barack Obama is going to stand. On the one hand, he believes that returning the image of America as a just society, ending America's role in torture and indefinite detention (for instance, his determination to have Guantanamo Bay's prison camp closed within two years--a timeline that I wish was quicker, but I'll survive with). On the other hand, when it comes to political figures, he has shown a taste for reconciliation rather than recrimination (Lieberman comes to mind). Of course, when he has been reconciling, it has been over politics rather than war crimes.

I want to believe that Barack Obama will do the right thing. And the right thing for him to do is this: he should direct AG Holder, upon assuming office, to appoint Patrick Fitzgerald (who has taken down a high profile Republican and a high profile Democrat) Special Prosecutor to investigate war crimes.

I mean, it's pretty straightforward. It's on everyone's mind.

The only thing I'm worried about is the President's absolute power of pardon. I did my bit, and sent some letters to try and convince my Senators to back up Congressman Nadler's bill that would suggest that the President not use his pardon to pardon members of his own administration, and I got the following response from Senator Feinstein:

Thank you for your letter concerning President Bush's executive authority to issue pardons. I appreciate hearing from you.



On November 20, 2008 Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) introduced H. Res.1531, which expressed the sense of the House of Representatives that the President of the United States should not issue pardons to senior members of his Administration during his final 90 days in office. H.Res.1531 has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

Please know that I have read and understand your concern about the potential abuse of presidential pardons by President Bush. Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution gives the President "power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment." A reprieve reduces the severity of a punishment without removing the guilt of the person reprieved. A pardon removes both punishment and guilt.

Most judicial scholars interpret the President's power to grant reprieves and pardons as absolute. Individual reprieves and pardons cannot be blocked by Congress or the courts. The Framers of the Constitution envisioned the pardon power as having a narrow purpose. It is my hope that President Bush will use his Constitutional authority wisely.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to write me. I hope you will continue to keep in touch with me on issues of importance to you. If you have any questions or comments, please call my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841. Best regards.


I do have to say, one of the biggest reasons that Congress is not a sufficient counter-weight against the President is simply their refusal to fight the President in the court system sometimes. Executive Privilege and the pardon powers have grown too much, and the idea that Senator Feinstein is willing to bet the concept of Justice in America on President Bush using his Constitutional authority wisely... it is absurd.

Sunday, December 14, 2008

Sunday Recommendation: Shostakovich's Quality of Sadness

Every Sunday, from now on, I'll recommend you some work of art. This weekend: Dmitri Shostakovich's String Quartet Number 8 in C Minor. I won't recap who he is, or what the song is, since I'm going to link you to much better explanations. Here's the music:

And the second two movements:


My impressions: well, I was brought to thinking about this piece, which is one of my favorite pieces of all time, because of a friend who linked me to the Moonlight Sonata, and to Chopin's Nocturne Op.9 No.2.

Those two songs are very sad. And I love them too (I hadn't heard Chopin's Nocturne before, but I'm glad I did). The difference is in the quality of emotion, the nuance of scale--which is good, because if we were just going to perfection of emotion, the Moonlight Sonata might have ended sad music for the rest of history. You just can't beat the Moonlight Sonata at its game.

But of course, sadness comes in many flavors and varieties--bet you can't have just one--and Chopin and Beethoven are looking at a specific, classical kind of sadness. The classical image of sadness that I get from those pieces are the sadness that surrounds itself in beauty for comfort; the idea being, "if I suffer, I might as well suffer poetically--that way my suffering won't have been for naught, because in the pangs of birth will come something beautiful." That's what harmony means for me emotionally--no matter what the content is (here, sadness), it lies in a supreme order--that order gives it its meaning, that meaning gives it its comfort.

Shostakovich is not striving for that kind of sadness, or that kind of beauty--even though what he brings up is just as beautiful. Shostakovich is investigating a sadness that reacts in anger, in fury at the chaos around it. The rhythms in the third movement (my favorite, and I suspect many peoples' favorite) are lurching; the second and fourth movements explode out of the natural endings of the first and third; at times a dissonant squeal simply sits above the music. Dissonance is the chaos that the anger is rebelling against.

Interestingly, my familiarity with the song comes from tracks I purchased of eMusic.com (without being sourced). When I went to find clips on YouTube, almost all of the renditions I found were much faster and more manic than mine; it seems as though whomever conducted the version I'm listening to as I'm typing this (the one I bought from eMusic) is more familiar with the former (Beethoven/Chopin) sadness than the latter (Shostakovich) sadness. I was shocked when I heard the renditions on YouTube--the recording age makes you very reliant on certain renditions of your favorite song--but pleasantly so.

Listen to it. Enjoy the Russian sensibility (and irritability).