Search the List

Thursday, July 30, 2026

Troye Sivan | My, My, My / 2018 [music video]

rushing forward to sex

by Douglas Messerli

 

Troye Sivan (performer), Troye Sivan Mellet, Brett McLaughlin, Oscar Görres, and James Alan Ghaleb (lyricists and composers), Grant Singer (director) My, My, My / 2018 [3:30 minutes] [music video]

 

One of the most memorable of gay Australian pop icon Troye Sivan’s songs, My, My, My was released on his second album, Something to Give Each Other in January 10th, 2018, and was first performed live on Saturday Night Live on January 20th. The song, he has admitted, was inspired by his then relationship with US model and photographer Jacob Bixenman, a relationship which lasted from 2016-2020.


   At the time, the song was described as a break-through declaring pure gay passion, and immediately moving to the heart of the issue wherein two men keep “Running from love” at the very moment that each night they “die” in one another’s arms. The constantly shifting frames of Sivan’s willowy figure (Sivan suffers from a mild condition of mild form of Marfan syndrome), mostly in black-and-white, with an open shirt rushing away as he moves in a kind of frenzied forward dance, help to reiterate the almost breathless utterance of the chorus:  

    

Oh my, my, my

I die every night with you

Oh my, my, my

Living for your every move

 

    The video begins with its general statement of what seems to be his nearly breathless condition of passion:

 

Shine on, diamond

Don't make me wait another day

'Cause passion is passion

You know it just as well as me


     This is followed by a pre-chorus that summarizes the difficulties of that fact:

 

Now, let's stop running from love

Running from love

Let's stop, my baby

Let's stop running from us

Running from us

Let's stop, my baby

 

    And is followed by the chorus which cannot even fully express its love, leading with the phrase “My, my, my.”

 

    The second statement even more fully exclaims their passion:

 

Spark up, buzz cut

I got my tongue between your teeth

Go slow, no, no, go fast

You like it just as much as me

 

    By the end of the song, the curly blond-haired singer (blond, at least in this video) cannot do anything except respirate his passion, repeating the chorus over and over.


    This short gay work almost smells of lust and sweat, as we see both singer and brief blips of his lover. The rush forward to sex says everything about the work we need to know. 

 

Los Angeles, July 29, 2026

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog (July 2026).

Simone Forti | A Different Space: An Interview between Douglas Messerli and Simone Forti

a different space: an interview between douglas messerli and simone forti

by Douglas Messerli


In late January I was invited by the publicist for REDCAT, Matthew Johnstone, apparently on the suggestion of a staff member who I don’t know, to interview the great dancer/creator Simone Forti.

      I quickly agreed, although I was fairly ignorant, I must admit, of her vast career. I had met her, I believe, decades earlier, probably at Judson Dance Theatre, in 1969, with Yvonne Rainer. Today I cannot even imagine who might have taken me to that venue; perhaps Peter Frank (who Simone said she knew), or another figure such as Mac Wellman or Fiona Templeton. It’s not important: I shook hands and was simply happy to be around their company. I later saw her perform at the memorial service for the great artist/performance figure Nam June Paik at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. But beyond that, I was quite unaware of her entire career and oeuvre.

     A little, or even great deal of research, made me perceive how our lives had long circled each other’s, as later my friend Fred Dewey published some of her books, and my own editor and assistant Pablo Capra came to know her through her involvement at Beyond Baroque, a poetry reading venue in Venice, on whose board I once served.

    And, finally, truly meeting one another in the dressing-room bowels of the Redcat at the Walt Disney Center in downtown Los Angeles, we bonded, it seemed to me, in a way that she and I have done with so many other dancers, writers, artists, and performers over long years.

    I left the interview almost in tears over the new friendship I felt I had made with this incredible figure.

    Below is my interview, reconstructed, carefully, from the computer notes and memory of my warm encounter with Simone. (I’ve identified my inquiries with an “M” for my last name, and Forti’s answers and other statements with an “F.”



M: I’m going to ask you questions, which perhaps you have answered several times in your life, I must apologize, in a rather historical context, in part, to simply help readers understand the entire scope of your work.

 

Simone, you were born in Florence, Italy and left early in your life with your family to escape Mussolini’s reign to Bern, Switzerland (incidentally the city in which my relatives from both sides of my family originally came from). Did your early life in either of these countries later influence you in any manner? And if so, how?

 

F: We were in Bern, for six months. During that time my sister and I were taken for walks in the bearpits. It was winter, and I loved the snow.

 

M: Yes, we don’t have such weather here in Los Angeles, do we?

 

F: I miss weather. It’s almost scary to wake up and realize you’re under the glass veldt.

 

M: After graduating from the famous Los Angeles Fairfax High School you attended Reed College in Oregon, another hotbed for writers, dancers, and performers. Did Reed help you to perceive what you later accomplished?

 

F: Most importantly was meeting Morris there. Cage and Olson were also at Reed, but I wasn’t aware, and I had little recognition, given my age, about what was going on around me.

 

M:  In 1955 you married the soon-to-be important artist Robert Morris, working with him over the next several years. How did Morris effect your dancing and artistic aspirations, or, perhaps more interestingly, how did you help effect his own art?

 

F: For one thing he was a task master. He wanted me to be applying my talent. People were doing light-shows at the time. I was influential in helping Bob come into the performance world. At the same time, I did a number of abstract expressionist paintings.

 

M: Once you moved with Morris to the Bay Area, you began working with the dancer/choreographer Anna Halprin, joining her Dancer’s Workshop which included other great figures such as A.A. Leath and John Graham. At the time you were 21 years of age, a long time after which most dancers begin their career—and I might add that Paul Taylor, himself a late beginner, encouraged me at about that same age to begin dancing, which I did soon after, taking courses at the Joffrey Ballet Company in New York. How did that age difference liberate or perhaps delimit your aspirations?

 

F: To do ballet you had to start as a very small child, but as an artist working with movement… it didn’t cross my mind that I should have started earlier. These artists working Halprin were older, working with movement, not working at the baré.

 

M: In the late 1950s you and Morris moved to New York City, and you began to work in an improvisation class at the Merce Cunningham studio. Merce could be a difficult critic of his even own dancers. What was your experience with him?

 

F: I didn’t have much contact with Merce himself, since I worked primarily with Robert Dunn. Later I had a wonderful lunch with Cage.

 

M: Well, Cage was always the charmer.

      Obviously you flourished, not only making contact with Merce’s companion John Cage but developing relationships with other dancers such as Trisha Brown, Yvonne Rainer, and Steve Paxton. Today, it seems almost remarkable that you were so able to draw younger and same-age talents to you, later working with many of them. Did you perceive yourself as a rather gregarious person, or simply someone who befriended so many talents?

 

F:  Yes, I was rather gregarious, but also my talents and their talents were attached to Bob Dunn. He wanted us to make a frame for ourselves in order to create our work.

 

M: Soon after, in the early 1960s you were already creating what you described as “Dance Constructions,” featuring what might be described as every day or even pedestrian movements with Yvonne Rainer (in See Saw) and Matty Mucha (then Patty Oldenberg) who performed one of your most noted works Roller Boxes. How did this wonderment of creativity come about?

 

F: One thread in this story was that I became aware of the Gutai movement in Japan, through photos of their work, especially of walking through paper, a series of frames stretched with paper set in front of one another, walking on paper. And it seemed to me as one action, one gesture.

 

Gutai means concrete. I felt dizzy with “Improvisation 15,” all of us working until 3:00 in the morning!

 

M:  Bringing together both dance and visual art (one of your major early pieces was performed in Yoko Ono’s studio) along with Ruth Allphon, Marni Mahaffay, Morris, Paxton, Rainer, and Carl Lehmann-Haupt, you almost single-handedly transformed the dance landscape, which led, the same year, to the establishment of the famed Judson Dance Theater in Judson Memorial Church. What did you feel about these incredible achievements, and weren’t you a bit overwhelmed?

 

F:  I don’t think I was aware of these great achievements; it was what I had the opportunity to do. Not so different from happenings. Accumulating a lot of work.

     O Black Mountain, if I had been around at Black Mountain, I felt in those days! I didn’t quite realize what we were attaining on our own in New York.

 

M:  As Paxton has written: "All I know is that this small, radical group of works by Forti was like a pebble tossed into a large, still, and complacent pond. The ripples radiated. Most notably, Forti's event happened prior to the first performance at Judson Memorial Church by the choreographers from Robert Dunn's composition class, and they took courage from it."

     From there you moved on to what at the time was described as “happenings,” many with your second husband Robert Whitman, now calling yourself Simone Whitman.

 

F:  I was on Whitman’s team, working intensely with him.

 

M:  It’s almost as if you kept transforming yourself, creating new worlds of dance, performance art, and other combines that no one before had somehow imagined, with works such as American Moon, “Hole, Water, Nighttime Sky and others which called up a world of natural imagery, before turning in the late 1960s to your Zoo Mantras and other works based on the movements of animals locked behind bars in the Rome Zoo and elsewhere. I’ve seen some of the animals, particularly the bears in Berlin, although I’ve never visited the Rome zoo.

     How did you come to perceive that such primitive and often obsessive behaviors might be interesting to dance?

 

F:  As I mentioned previously, when I was a kid my father would take me and my sister to the zoo in Bern and we’d draw, and then we’d discuss how we’d captured their movements.

      That was one thing which I had in my background. In Rome, I had lodgings near the zoo, and the animals were sad and I was sad, having just broken up with Whitman.

      I started drawing the animals again and watching them move and looking at other animals in the New York Zoo. New York bears are pretty creative. They do not simply pace but work out relationships with their spaces. Part of their behavior inside, and outside represented on tapes of the museum, was expressed in their gaits, how they walk, which was what became most interesting to me. I would try it to imitate the gaits of bears and other animals: giraffes, kangaroos, etc. Even though I, as a human being, walked so very differently.

M: Yes and isn’t it sad what is now happening to the kangaroos in the Australian fires.

 

F: Yes. Tragic.

 

M: And later, in Fabio Sargentini’s Festival Music and Dance, you met and worked with figures such as Joan Jonas, Charlemagne Palestine, and La Monte Young. Were those figures or earlier ones who introduced you to the concepts you would later embrace surrounding Fluxus?

 

F:  Going back to Robert Dunn’s class, we were assigned to do a 3-minute piece and not work on it, a kind of Fluxus-like act. But I don’t feel so much aligned with Fluxus. I always say I was married to Fluxus through my third husband, musician Peter Van Riper, who wanted very much to be a Fluxus figure, but did other things as well. The Fluxus group was very selective about who they might include among their midst.

 

M:  I’m completely ignoring your time in Woodstock but let us move forward a bit.

      Back in California, working at the California Institute of the Arts in the early 1970s you worked and shared a house with the innovative composer/performer Nam June Paik, Alison Knowles and your third husband Peter Van Riper. That must have been an astonishing household—a bit like the time when Paul and Jane Bowles lived in the same house with set-designer Oliver Smith, W. H. Auden, Peter Pears, Benjamin Britten, and Golo Mann, the son of Thomas Mann. Can you describe it?

 

F:  A very nice experience, sharing a large house with them, Paik’s assistant, Shuya Abe was staying in the house? He would cook, announcing, with hand-written messages to each of us how to proceed, usually requiring us to wash the pans before the meal was cooked.

 

M: Usually, we wash the dishes after we cook. (Simone laughs).

     And here you are today rehearsing for yet another anthology of your dances at REDCAT. At age 85 aren’t you just a bit exhausted? Or let me just say I am amazed at your energy.

 

F: Well, you won’t see any grand jetés or other such balletic movements. I move in a different space.

 

Los Angeles, January 31, 2020

Reprinted from USTheater, Opera, and Performance (January 2020).

 

 

 

The next evening, I attended the performance of Simone Forti’s sound works: Al Di Lá: An Evening of Sound Works by Simone Forti at REDCAT. With fellow performers Tashi Wada, Julia Holter, Jessika Kenney, and Corey Fogel, she selected works she had performed that centered upon sound, over 50 years, a kind of golden anniversary of her dance-sound focuses. The works she performed included her 1968 Largo Argentina, featuring her use of an instrument created for jerry-rigged tubing, from the same year; Face Tunes, “played with a slide whistle equipped with a stylus” that follows the outline of the a series of face profiles from a scroll rolling down from the vision of the face; her noted Hippie Gospel Songs, “Fire on the Mountain” (1969-70), Lullaby to an Ant from the same years, Ocean Song, Piru Song, and On This Great Field, along with more recent works such as Dance of the Happy Dog (from 2006). A sold-out audience gave Forti the standing applause she deserved.

Monday, July 13, 2026

Erik Patterson Handjob / The Echo Theater Company, performing at Atwater Village Theater, Los Angeles / the performance I attended was on Sunday, September 9, 2019

actually touching

by Douglas Messerli

 

Erik Patterson Handjob / The Echo Theater Company, performing at Atwater Village Theater, Los Angeles / the performance I attended was on Sunday, September 9, 2019

 

While Erik Patterson’s new play, performed the other afternoon at the Echo Theater Company’s venue at Atwater Village Theater in Los Angeles, is not precisely a major theatrical masterwork, it is, nonetheless, certainly an intriguing drama, which will allow you to leave the theater with a great many questions about gay sex, sexual exploitations, sexual abusiveness, racial identity, and the white community’s inability to perceive racial concerns—as well as what writer’s do to individuals in involving them into their literary “plots.” There’s lots to chew on here, and many issues that simply cannot be answered by either the author or his audience.

      First of all, the play itself seeks out the limits of sexual taboos in theater. Certainly, we’ve seen nudity in the theater numerous times in the past decades, and audiences have perhaps grown rather more sophisticated than the early days when this kind of theater might simply have been closed down—just as were numerous art exhibits, performance pieces, films, and other art works because of their depictions of nudity, let alone, as in the case, gay nudity. We can breathe a little more openly, and none of the audience members of this production, male or female, gay or family groups (no children that I could perceive) hardly blinked an eye when the major events of this production occurred, although many of the audience members, as I was, might have been mildly titillated.


     After all, the major premise itself is a slightly kinky one: a handsome and well-modeled black man offers himself up to his basically gay clientele as a “shirtless cleaner.” A self-proclaimed heterosexual man, Eddie (Michael Rishawn) will come and clean your house while, having whipped off his shirt, he allows his customers to simply gaze upon him. Given his well-developed torso, he is, indeed, something to behold; but one has to question what any of his customers get out of the encounter. Even at age 72, I might wonder what pleasure there is at observing a beautiful man without being able to touch him or at least fully communicate with him. But Patterson’s major figure, Keith (Steven Culp), a playwright—or as he describes it, a writer of dialogues—basically doesn’t seem to mind his passive state. After all, he lives surrounded by dozens of books, many of which he has not yet read; and he cannot reach out, it appears, to really discover why this beautiful being is selling himself into this most strange situation. What is Eddie really doing in the act of allowing himself to be paid by the gay gaze?

     The problem with Keith is, that despite his fascination with the young man, he seldom asks questions, and when he does it is most just an interest in furthering his “studies” of such a bine, without really probing the man/boy behind them.

     Obviously, that is also the problem of the play, which Patterson makes clear by embedding yet another play within his own, this created by Keith, based on his not terribly profound knowledge of his subject. In this “play” version (and “play” is a good term here, since it is not simply a theatrical event, but a playing with/and a playing out of his supposed encounters with his shirtless cleaner).


    In Keith’s play, another shirtless cleaner, Bradley (Ryan Nealy)—in this case a white boy—hires himself out for the same tasks, in the same set, to Kevin (Stephen Guarino), but is willing to go a bit further than Eddie for another $40 dollars. He is not only willing to drop his drawers, for an additional $40 dollars will allow Kevin to give him a hand-job as long as his lips don’t touch his cock.

     The scene where he undresses and lies on the bed with a full erection (from my vantage point in the audience I couldn’t quite determine whether his erect cock was an appendage or real, but given the argument of the play, we should presume that the actor actually gave us the full monty; although, I later read it was a prosthetic device. But a bit like Eddie, the “real” was simply too much for him, particularly when the actor playing Kevin actually takes out his own penis (obviously the real thing) to masturbate as he gives pleasure to the young man.

     Bradley, suddenly, mid-coitus so to speak, balks, shout out the Kevin’s action awa not in the script, and refusing, accordingly, to continue the sexual act. The director, black feminist Susan (Tamara Graham) and her assistant, Kate (Gloria Ines) immediately enter the scene to try to convince him that Kevin’s impulsive act was justified, and to remind the actor that, after all, as they had argued in rehearsals, it was important for the play-goers to see two gay men actually “touch” one another. The playwright, Keith also appears to justify his sexual depiction of their encounters, particularly, he argues (some ingeniously) given that our culture is perfectly willing to witness hundreds of scenes of gun murders without being able to accept the action of two men attempting a sexual act before the public eye.

     The recalcitrant actor, now dressed in a robe, continues to refuse the “hand-job,” forcing us, ultimately, as in a Wagnerian opera to experience the grand, but rather paltry, sexual act as “coitus interruptus.”


    In the last scene of the play, Eddie, still hired by Keith as the “shirtless cleaner,” has now apparently seen Keith’s play and is angrily appalled by its use of his own life story. There are several issues at work in this last scene: one, happening earlier in the play, is that at a certain point when he as agreeably cleaning with smiling approval of his sexual admirer’s gaze, Keith attempted to grope him. When Eddie was offended, Keith immediately apologized and withdrew. Eddie, it is clear, has not been able to forget the incident, and now reminds Keith of his action.

     This might have been a kind of #MeToo moment, except that in a world wherein we finally realize that Eddie has been working as a kind of prostitute all along, performing in a “don’t touch me world” in which he is encouraging just that, it is, if nothing else, rather hypocritical if he were to claim abuse of the very act he is depending on his money. How can a man whose clientele includes mostly gay men who long for his body not perceive him as promising their sexual involvement? Is it all simply a game that is not insignificantly about power and beauty? And, in this case, in fact, there has actually been no “real” sexual abuse, but simply a response from what his audience cannot but perceive as a sexual come-on. What is truly happening here when Eddie suggest that he will reveal Keith’s action on Facebook and other sources as being a sexual abuser? Who might be described as the real abuser?

     In fact, Eddie has not lost any sexual innocence, but rather has been denied his own identity. Keith does not truly see him as black and has hired a white actor to play him, insisting, like so many stupid liberal white before him that he sees Eddie not as a black man but simply as a human being. But, of course, Eddie is most definitely black, and the fact that Keith has used him as a character in a play, replete with many quotes that have come from his own mouth, has wiped away his true existence. Playing with the playwright, Eddie presents him several alternatives of himself—none of them the playwright might have imagined, and perhaps none of them true: he is a microbiologist or a student at Julliard studying playwrighting. Does it matter that he is truly, perhaps, just a prostitute, selling his torso to older gay men?

     Yes, it does matter. Both have helped to destroy each other’s lives, when if they might simply have unclothed themselves and laid down in a bed, it would have resolved everything. This, ultimately, is a play of sexual frustration, of people who can’t comprehend that there’s imply nothing wrong with loving and touching one another, black or white. Keith has no power other than his checkbook, and Eddie has no sexual discord other than that which lies behind his highly defined torso. Both may be destroyed by the sexual limitations of the society at large; but why, we must ask? Neither have any power in their worlds, whereas, both might have enjoyed their secret empowerment in bed.

      The hand-job should have been completed, even if it isn’t the ultimate of sexual pleasure. And yes, give the other guy of moment of pleasure as well. Why are we rejecting pleasure and embracing the guns that assure us of a Wagnerian death? We don’t need to die to experience love, do we? Are we all perverts for seeking the pleasure of human flesh?

      What is the difference between sexual interchange and abuse? What is the difference between liberal values of racial differences and the inability to perceive what being black, or any other color means in a basically all-white world of power?

      Living in Los Angeles, I don’t have those answers, since I do not live in a dominant white world. Nor did I as a young gay man in New York City. Was I an abuser in a world in which, to me—as an attractive young male—everyone I met seemed to be gay? No one ever told me to stop!

No one every once said, you’re abusing me by hugging, kissing, and touching my cock! And certainly, I never once felt than anyone who came on to me as a sexual abuser, even the sometimes older men who loved to gaze at my youth.

      What has changed? Something has shifted, it spears to me, as we have grown into an increasingly frightened world, where we are now afraid of dealing with one another’s bodies. Perhaps in hindsight, I might have thought as myself as desecrated. I never once felt that, only enjoyment for being a young who equally took pleasure in others as they did in me. Maybe we are all to hardened—and I am not at all talking about intentional and serial abusers such as Harvey Weinstein and Donald Trump, the monsters of sexual abuse—to even explore our own sexualities. Poor Eddie, working as a kind of male prostitute who didn’t comprehend that he had already given up his identity, or perhaps, could not even accept his own sexual identity.

     Patterson suggests than in the play with this play, there is a brutal fight between the confused sexual being and the one seemingly accosting him. That is a terrible possibility, but perhaps a better one than the horrible outing Eddie proposes on Twitter and Facebook, the social communities we have created to keep people from being who they might truly be. Maybe actually touching might be a better solution.

 

Los Angeles, September 10, 2019

Reprinted from World Theater, Opera, and Performance (September 2019).

       

Saturday, July 4, 2026

Benjamin Britten, E. M. Foster, and Eric Crozier | Billy Budd / 1988 [video of English National Opera production]

 darkness, hate, and despair

by Douglas Messerli

 

E. M. Foster and Eric Crozier (libretto, based on the fiction by Herman Melville), Benjamin Britten (composer), Tim Avery (stage director), Barry Gavin (video director) Billy Budd / 1988 [video opera]

 

The English National Opera Orchestra and Chorus production of the opera Billy Budd of 1988, is quite different from the BBC Opera broadcast of 1966 with its open sets and above board actions and officer meetings.


    In Tim Avery’s version of this opera, the emphasis is almost entirely on the law, beginning with the Captain Vere of this production, Philip Langridge not in his library contemplating as in the earlier version in which he muses over the patriarchal laws and restrictions. The books in Tim Avery’s production appear in piles at an angular position as if it were a conveyer belt of the past that he must deal with, a symbolic reading that demand and, of course, justify, the death of anyone who challenges the situation; but it seems heavy-handed given the already lethargic and sorrowful condition of Vere. Langridge appears far leaner and more haggard than Peter Pears. In short, we see both in metaphor and in reality that this Vere has not well survived the years since his decision to destroy Billy. Vere’s justification of his acts here seem entirely empty and meaningless.


      In the work, moreover the books become even more oppressive as the opening chorus members themselves are seen with the books piled before them as we enter the world of their on-board oppression.

      On this ship there is no easy access between the lower deck where the sailors live and the above board world of the officers. They must scurry in an out of narrow slats that lead to the below deck- world much like rats. Even entry and exit is severely delimited in this world.


      The sailors, filmed in darkened and muted hues—this video is in color—are treated even more like bowing slaves than in the earlier BBC production. The oppression, as they sing the “O heave away” song becomes almost like something out of Verdi’s works involving bondage. This ship has none of the superficial legality of fairness that even Vere might have imagined, particularly when we realize they are in bondage not only to the iron batons of Claggart and his kind, but to the books themselves. The symbolism already far outweighs any possible realism in this operatic production. In a sense, Claggart becomes simply an evil personification of the system already at work, whether or not Vere is yet completely aware of it or not. It is the system that kills Billy in the end even more than Claggart or even the refusal to action of Captain Vere.

    Thomas Allen as Billy Budd arrives soon after with the other two impressed sailors, Claggart (Richard von Allan), who in this production looks a bit like how we might conceive death, finding the beautiful founding (a bit prettier than Peter Glossop in the earlier production) to be a “find in a thousand, a beauty, a jewel. The pearl of great price.” Von Allan’s Claggart is immediately ready to admit to his utter attraction to this young man, which, as we know, will be the undoing of Billy.


     But for a moment Billy Budd is “king of the birds, …king of the world!” As he gloriously climbs up the narrow stairs to the foretop singing out of his last boat and comrades, “Farewell to the rights o’ man!” which spells immediate danger to the officers of this ship which interpret such words immediately as being seditious.  

      Like the general quality of the production, however, even Allen’s glorious singing seems to be muted, tapped down before he can even enjoy the moment of his new placement among the hawks.

      Unfortunately, given the darkness and basically uninspired continuation of events. The terrible flogging of the boy leaves him unable to walk, while Claggart sings out “Let him crawl.” The cries of the boy, “I’m done for, I’m done for,” characterize this part of the film, sung in such deep darkness that we can hardly witness the actions.

      It is only with the arrival of the French ship and the failed attempt at attacks when this version of the opera seems to come to life, the color finally returns as all the military brass and the sailors are called on board and action might seem to bring their blood rushing into the bodies once again. In a glorious moment with the full cast on stage this opera suddenly seems to catch fire.

 


     The sailors dream of their own invigoration, they temporary freedom from the world of navel law as chaos seems to cling to the error. But alas, the clouds again hide the foreign ship, the calmness of order and law descends upon them, and even their excited cries are no longer heard as they are forced once again to scurry to the bowels of the ship to be called forward only for punishment and hard labor.


    The implications are that their only joy below is the company of their beautiful companion Billy. Even if they do not share his body, although the writing always opens itself up to the possibility, even his company, his beautiful singing, and simply his caring and benign mien gives there comfort and joy as opposed to the torture of Claggart and the others. In this version of Britten’s masterwork, Claggart does just look like death, he is death, the mirror of all of their fates. It is only natural, accordingly, that he should go after the fairest and purest of them all.

     Claggart’s horrific self-confession of his true vengeance against everything Budd stands for already declares the charming boy’s end:

 

                  “O beauty, o handsomeness, goodness

                   You are surely in my power tonight.

                   Nothing can defend you.”

 


     He knows that he will win, even if it means his own death. This is not just the vengeance of an evil man, this is pure hate speaking, the kind of political hate that underlines this world based on laws that have no longer taken into account just of what he sings: beauty, handsomeness, goodness—and as he might add “fairness and justice.” But, of course, those two elements lie ahead in Vere’s hands, and we quickly recognize what a true coward the imagined “Starry Vere” truly is.

     The weakness—as well as perhaps the strength—of Avery’s production is that nothing in Britten’s roiling score is left to the possibilities the music always seems to promise. The hanging of the beautiful Billy from the yardarm seems determined from the first chord of this dark opera.

     In this world there are no hawks, no stars. Billy is only a naïve dreamer. All is far too dark and determined.

 

Los Angeles, July 3, 2026

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog (July 2026)    


Index of Entries (by author, composer, lyricist, choreographer, or performer)

TABLE OF CONTENTS John Adams, Lucinda Childs, and Frank O. Gehry | Available Light / 2015 John Adams and Alice Goodman | The Death of Klingh...