ARTICLE | Madness and murder

Eadweard Muybridge

Eadweard Muybridge

Eadweard Muybridge looked like a mix of Walt Whitman and Zeus. He was tall and lean, with a long white beard, and bushy brows that shadowed his eyes and made him seem thoughtful and deviant. In 1871, while in his 40s, he married a woman half his age named Flora Shallcross Stone. Three years later, Muybridge found a letter his wife had written to a drama critic named Major Harry Larkyns.

Muybridge found the letter in his midwife’s home. In it was a photograph of his seven-month old son, upon which his wife had written the boy’s name as “Little Harry,” which led Muybridge to believe his son was not in fact his son.

“He stamped on the floor and exhibited the wildest excitement,” Muybridge’s midwife remembered after he found the letter. “He was haggard and pale and his eyes glassy... he trembled from head to foot and gasped for breath.”

Flora Shallcross Stone

Flora Shallcross Stone

Muybridge caught a train that afternoon north from San Francisco to Vallejo. It was night when he knocked on Larkyns’ door. As Larkyns stepped forward, Muybridge shoved a revolver at him and said, “I have brought a message from my wife, take it.”

Larkyns died from the gunshot.

The state charged Muybridge with murder for killing Larkyns. At trial, Muybridge pleaded insanity.

In closing arguments, Muybridge’s lawyer argued that “every fiber of a man's frame impels him to instant vengeance, and he will have it, if hell yawned before him the instant afterward.” The jury of mostly old and gray men seemed to agree, and the photographer was acquitted. Muybridge and his wife divorced. She died five months later of an illness. And even though he’d given his son the middle name Helios—the same he signed his photos—he abandoned the child at an orphanage. Learn more here.

RELATED PROGRAMMING: THE PHOTOGRAPHER | MAR 20-22, 2020

SOURCE: The Atlantic


MEET THE ARTISTS | RED

THE CAST

AndyHeadshot.jpg

Andrew Grenier (Rothko) has had a theatre career that spans over fifty years as an educator, actor, director, and producer. In the winter of 2018, Andrew appeared in Chris Fisher’s Steel at the Erickson Theatre in Seattle. His most recent appearance at WICA was in February of 2015 when he directed, and played the role of Lyman Wyeth, in Jon Robin Baitz’s Other Desert Cities. Previously at WICA, Andrew directed the Alan Ayckbourn Tony Award-winning trilogy The Norman Conquests, Yasmina Reza’s God of Carnage, and Doubt by John Patrick Shanley. Other acting roles include Charlie in Edward Albee’s Seascape and Ronald Brewster-Wright in Alan Ayckbourn’s Absurd Person Singular.

Chad+Sommerville+Headshot.jpg

Chad Sommerville (Ken) was most recently seen in The 14/48 Projects @ ACT: The World’s Quickest Theatre Festival. Other Seattle credits include The Totally True and Almost Accurate Adventures of Pinocchio (Geppetto) with The 14/48 Projects, As You Like It (Silvius and Charles) with Seattle Shakespeare Company, and Romeo and Juliet (Paris) with ACT Theatre. Chad recently graduated from Cornish College of the Arts where performed in Much Ado About Nothing (Claudius and Conrad) and It Can’t Happen Here (Shad LeDue). His Pacific Conservatory of Performing Arts credits include You Can’t Take It With You (Tony Kirby) and Community Speaks! for Patriotism. He is currently acting as Production Manager for The 14/48 Projects.

THE CREATIVE TEAM

Vito Zingarelli (direction) served as Executive Director for WICA when it was first opened in 1997/98 and directed Theresa Rebeck’s The Understudy for WICA in 2011. Vito has been program director at Hedgebrook since early 2007. Prior to joining Hedgebrook, Vito taught at NYU-Tisch School of the Arts, where he served as director of theatrical production for three separate but interdependent MFA departments; Graduate Acting, Design for Stage, and Film and Dance. He worked for over 30 years in North America as a Producing Director and Production Manager where he put together seasons and mounted over 150 productions of Classical, Contemporary, and Musical Theatre as well as championing new play development at the following theatres: the Guthrie Theatre, Seattle Repertory Theatre, ACT Theatre, Berkeley Repertory Theatre, Ojai Playwrights Conference, Milwaukee Repertory Theatre, Empty Space Theatre, Alaska Repertory Theatre, as well as North America’s largest resident theatre company, the Stratford Shakespeare Festival in Ontario, Canada.

Dorit%2BHeadshot.jpg

Dorit Zingarelli (costume design) has worked in various theatrical capacities including set and costume design, stage management, and costume and prop construction. Dorit has worked in professional theatre since age 17 starting at the Stratford Shakespeare Festival, Canada. Subsequently, she worked at the Manitoba Theatre Center, Magnus Theatre, Charlottetown Theatre, Vancouver East Cultural Center, Yeats Theatre Company London, Berkeley Repertory Theatre, and the International Solo Theatre Festival in Tokyo. She produced the Perth County Conspiracy prison tours in Canada, served as tour manager for Loreena McKennitt concert tour of Spain and Portugal, and was the production liaison for Plaza of Nations ceremonies at Expo ’86 World’s Fair in Vancouver, BC. She was also logistics stage manager for 100th Anniversary of United Way at the Kingdome. Other WICA credits include love is a place (scenic and costume design) and The Understudy (costume design and choreography).

gignac.jpg

David Gignac (scenic design), a New York native, has been designing, building, and painting sets since the early 1980's. After arriving on Whidbey in 1991, he began designing and building for Island Theater, Island Art's Council productions, and other groups. David has been involved in the WICA Theatre Series since it's first production, Bell Book and Candle, and is extremely excited to be designing and painting for Red, it’s 100th production. Over the years, he has designed for a number of fringe theaters in Seattle and was nominated for a Gregory Falls Award for Outstanding Scenic Design for When I Come To My Senses I AM Alive. More recently, he designed the 2017 and 2018 seasons for Island Shakespeare Festival while also serving as it’s Technical Director. In November 2019, David was honored to be named WICA's Resident Scenic Designer. Recent design credits include Prelude To A Kiss, It's A Wonderful Life, and contributing designer for SEX.

Patty Mathieu (lighting design) began her work at WICA ten years ago lighting The Understudy. Other WICA lighting designs include Doubt, Other Desert Cities, Becky’s New Car, Frost/Nixon, and November. Patty is the Production Manager at McCaw Hall at Seattle Center, home to Pacific Northwest Ballet and Seattle Opera. In addition to working with the Ballet and Opera, she manages events ranging from Gates Foundation All Staff to Seattle Men’s Chorus, Jim Gaffigan, Michael Bublé, and Dave Matthews. Over the past 30 years, she designed lighting for numerous shows for University of Puget Sound, Walla Walla Chamber Music Festival, Seattle Men’s and Women’s Choruses, Seattle Pacific University, WICA, Alice B Theatre, Seattle Children’s Theatre, The Village Theatre, Saint James Cathedral, and St. Mark’s Cathedral. Patty is a graduate of Whitman College and earned an MFA in Lighting Design and Technical Theatre at the University of Washington.

Jim Scullin (stage management) most recently appeared on the WICA stage as Clarence in It’s a Wonderful Life. Prior experience at WICA includes performing on stage, building sets, working in the booth and backstage, and acting as a rehearsal stage manager for multiple productions. Some favorite roles were in Our Town, Art, The God of Carnage, and The Laramie Project. An interesting note: Jim was the initial Stage Manager of, and built the set for the first show that WICA produced, Bell, Book and Candle.

RELATED PROGRAMMING: RED | FEB 07-22, 2020


MEET THE ARTIST | MARK ROTHKO

One of the preeminent artists of his generation, Mark Rothko is closely identified with the New York school, a circle of painters that emerged during the 1940s as a new collective voice in American art. During a career that spanned five decades, he created a new and impassioned form of abstract painting.

Rothko's work is characterized by rigorous attention to formal elements such as color, shape, balance, depth, composition, and scale; yet, he refused to consider his paintings solely in these terms. He explained: "It is a widely accepted notion among painters that it does not matter what one paints as long as it is well painted. This is the essence of academicism. There is no such thing as good painting about nothing."

By 1949 Rothko had introduced a compositional format that he would continue to develop throughout his career. Composed of several vertically aligned rectangular forms set within a colored field, Rothko's "image" lent itself to a remarkable diversity of appearances.

In these works, large scale, open structure, and thin layers of color combine to convey the impression of a shallow pictorial space. Color, for which Rothko's work is perhaps most celebrated, here attains an unprecedented luminosity.

His classic paintings of the 1950s are characterized by expanding dimensions and an increasingly simplified use of form, brilliant hues, and broad, thin washes of color. In his large, floating rectangles of color, which seem to engulf the spectator, he explored with a rare mastery of nuance the expressive potential of color contrasts and modulations…

Continue readinG:

EARLY CAREER: 1903 – 1948

CLASSIC PAINTINGS: 1949–1970

LISTEN | Muybridge: The Man Who Made Pictures Move

Eadweard Muybridge fundamentally changed how we think about photography. The images he produced in the late 19th century -- sequential photographs of men walking, or horses at a gallop, their movements broken down frame by frame -- have become iconic.

Muybridge's freeze-framed images of galloping horses made photography a medium about time and motion; in a series of images displayed in a grid, the animal is captured at split-second intervals, aloft and elastic.

Because the animal's movement was too fast for the human eye to register, there was a huge scientific debate in the 1870s over the question of whether all four hooves of the horse ever left the ground simultaneously. Muybridge's astonishing photographs settled the debate, though some remained skeptical.

Muybridge displayed images like the ones in his galloping horse by projecting them through a brass and wood contraption he invented called a zoopraxiscope. (The word is taken from Greek and means "animal action viewer.")

Eadweard Muybridge, Nature Photographer

Muybridge got his start in the late 1860s by taking pictures of trees and rocks. His exquisitely composed landscapes of the Pacific Northwest's ethereal waterfalls and shadowy mountain ranges inspired Ansel Adams to photograph Yosemite Valley.

Eadweard Muybridge, Zoopraxographer is a 1970s documentary by filmmaker Thom Andersen that follows Muybridge's journey. The film, narrated by actor Dean Stockwell, relates how Muybridge, who traveled with a wagon outfitted with a darkroom -- he called it his "flying studio" -- and used the name "Helios" when displaying his photographs, "undertook a systemic survey of the wonders and curiosities of Western America."

Muybridge traveled widely, at a time when travel itself was changing dramatically: from horsepower to iron and steam. As trains cut down the time it took for people to move through space, he ventured beyond even the new boundaries, rappelling into treacherous crevasses and hauling his equipment to remote Alaskan villages.

Muybridge was tall and athletic -- Andersen's documentary notes that when his packers refused to follow him, he would carry his equipment himself -- but also willful and strange. In San Francisco, he married a girl half his age. She began an affair with an explorer named Harry Larkyns; when Muybridge discovered the affair, he shot Larkyns dead.

Muybridge was acquitted in court, but after the episode he abandoned his child in an orphanage and ran off to Central America to shoot pictures. His wife became sick and died.

In 1982, Philip Glass premiered an opera about the tragedy called The Photographer. The opera mimicked themes -- including musical repetition and incremental changes that carry great meaning -- running throughout Muybridge's work. He has influenced countless artists, from Degas to Sol Lewitt. The bands U2 and the Crystal Method have based music videos on Muybridge's work. Even contemporary filmmakers using the latest technologies still crib from his textbook; the breaking down of motion in The Matrix comes directly from the animal locomotion project, where one moment in time is depicted from different angles.

His Masterpiece

At the University of Pennsylvania, Muybridge began work on a series of photographs that would make up a sort of encyclopedia of motion. According to Andersen's documentary, Muybridge's encyclopedia "encompassed 20,000 positions assumed by men, women and children, clothed and naked, and by birds and animals."

Muybridge borrowed dozens of exotic animals from the Philadelphia Zoo, including elephants, antelopes and zebras. He set up as many as 30 cameras and took over a Philadelphia racetrack. He shot them strolling, cantering and running on the track. He photographed people -- wrestling athletes, legless amputees struggling onto chairs, ordinary folks opening umbrellas. His idea was to break down motion so it could be studied by scientists.

Andersen says that Muybridge bridged the gap between science and art. Andersen's documentary notes that he "made no attempt to spare his models from embarrassment or discomfort. He had them walk on all fours, crawl on their hands and knees."

Even if we can't read Muybridge's Victorian mind, something about his work feels very contemporary. Maybe it's the strong graphic appeal, the contrast between organic animal and grid. Maybe it's because his photos are from a moment, not unlike ours, when conceptions of time are in flux. Suddenly, now you can send snapshots by cell phone in seconds across the world.

There's a common story here, one about human animals making their way through rigid modern structures that restrict and define their flow of movement. In a sped-up world, perhaps the work of the man who stopped time and then put it back in motion makes some kind of sense.

RELATED PROGRAMMING: THE PHOTOGRAPHER | MAR 20-22

SOURCE: NPR


ARTICLE | Ask the Author: Joan Biskupic

Ronald Collins (University of Washington School of Law) posed a series of questions to Joan Biskupic about her book The Chief: The Life and Turbulent Times of Chief Justice John Roberts (2019).

RELATED PROGRAMMING | ROBERT MERRY WITH JOAN BISKUPIC: THE STATE OF AMERICAN POLITICS

collins.jpg

Question: I want to begin with that excerpt from a letter that the young law clerk to Justice William Rehnquist wrote to his former boss, Judge Henry Friendly. In your opinion, do such divisions continue to plague the court nearly four decades after that letter was written? If so, how do you think Roberts will manage them in what you term “turbulent times”?

Biskupic: Thank you, Ron, for these questions about “The Chief.” And, yes, it was ever thus. Such divisions reflect the nature of political appointments to America’s highest court. But our times are even more politicized. So, the challenge for Roberts today is greater than it was in his earlier years. He has shown a pattern of trying to compromise a bit with alternate sides, as happened in his Affordable Care Act moves. We’ve seen that in a sequence of orders this term, e.g., in the Louisiana abortion case and the Alabama Muslim death penalty dispute of early February.

Question: You’ve known John Roberts for over two decades, having covered him throughout his career as a Justice Department lawyer, an appellate court advocate and a court of appeals judge. And yet, you describe him as an “enigma.” You draw upon something suggested by David Leebron, one of Roberts’ Harvard Law Review colleagues: “Roberts is an introvert who has learned to act as an extrovert.”

Can you give us a rough sketch of the man whom Kenneth Starr tagged “Mr. Everything”?

biskupic-hi.jpg

Biskupic: Yes, terrifically smart and determined but with a personal reserve, shyness even. I liked Leebron’s description and was pleased to draw that out of him. The “Mr. Everything” line from Ken Starr regards John Roberts’ youth at La Lumiere School. He was a star student who participated in all manner of extracurriculars. I often asked people who knew Roberts in his younger years about setbacks he might have experienced. That question stumped people. He seemed to have so few things go wrong, and he appeared good at just about everything.

Question: You describe the chief justice as “strategizing more than sublimating, always with an eye toward what he wants in the ultimate ruling and how it will appear.” Can you give us an example?

Biskupic: I think we see elements of that in his concurring statements in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, in which he tries to influence how the majority opinion will be regarded and to uncut the dissenting arguments. Roberts rarely writes concurrences; when he does, it’s revealing.

Question: How does Roberts differ from the jurists for whom he once clerked, Friendly and Rehnquist?

Biskupic: He is not as moderate on the law as Friendly. He is not as easygoing with his colleagues as Rehnquist. When Rehnquist became chief in 1986, he already had had 14 years on the bench. He had built up relations of trust. Roberts, far younger and with less experience than his colleagues, had to start from scratch to build relationships.

Question: Do you think the chief justice is more judicially temperate than the other Republican appointees on the Supreme Court bench — Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh?

Biskupic: Yes, and I think that’s partly because he is chief justice. Roberts has acknowledged that he takes a different approach to cases as chief than he would as an associate justice.

Question: Regarding Roberts’ opinion in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012), in which the court upheld the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate to buy health insurance, you write: “Viewed only through a judicial lens, his moves were not consistent and his legal arguments were not entirely coherent. But he brought people and their different interests together. He acted, in short, more like a politician.”

Is that ever likely to happen again? And how does this square with the chief justice’s concern for protecting the institution of the court?

Biskupic: His actions arose from many motives, including an effort to protect the Supreme Court as an institution. He wanted to avoid a 5-4 decision along predictable political lines in a presidential election year. Is that likely to happen again? Probably, but perhaps in a less sensational case. So much was happening in the dispute centered on the long-intractable healthcare problem and the signature domestic achievement of President Barack Obama.

Question: Last February, while speaking at Belmont Law School, Roberts declared: “I’m probably the most aggressive defender of the First Amendment. Most people might think that doesn’t quite fit with my jurisprudence in other areas… People need to know that we’re not doing politics. We’re doing something different. We’re applying the law.”

You devote a thoughtful chapter to the chief justice’s free speech jurisprudence. What do you make of his Belmont remarks and their implications for the future course of free speech law in the Supreme Court? Do you view his jurisprudence in this area as, in Justice Elena Kagan’s words, “weaponizing the First Amendment”?

Biskupic: That Belmont remark jumped out at me, too, Ron. First Amendment issues often do not break in the usual ideological patterns. But I think that Citizens United and the Janus v. AFSCME case that drew Kagan’s “weaponizing” rebuke had overriding political dimensions and divided the Republican and Democratic appointees precisely along political lines. I also do not believe Kagan is less committed to the First Amendment in the traditional sense, even though she was on the opposite side in Janus.

Question: During oral argument in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), Roberts took exception to the claim of the petitioners’ attorney that her clients were only asking the court to allow “a class of people who are, by state laws, excluded from being able to participate in this institution.” The chief saw the matter through a different lens: “No … you’re not seeking to join the institution, you’re seeking to change what the institution is. The fundamental core of the institution is the opposite-­sex relationship and you want to introduce into it a same­-sex relationship.”

Given that, and given the chief justice’s dissent in Obergefell, how likely do you think it is that he will adhere to that precedent, especially in cases involving countervailing claims of religious conscience?

41lt4xr%2BPGL.jpg

Biskupic: I think his dissent in Obergefell, particularly that he voiced it from the bench (first and only time ever for such an oral dissent) reveals Roberts’ deeply held views in this area. I cannot see him voting to overrule Obergefell but he could diminish the reach of its protections. We saw that in the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission decision last term. In a similar vein, I think Roberts would be inclined against extending Title VII to cover sexual orientation and gender identity. The court has so far this term deliberately avoided the issue.

Question: In Dickerson v. United States (2000), Rehnquist declined to expressly overrule Miranda v. Arizona (1966), despite a forceful dissent by Justice Antonin Scalia joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. In his majority opinion, Rehnquist declared: “We do not think there is [sufficient] justification for overruling MirandaMiranda has become embedded in routine police practice to the point where the warnings have become part of our national culture. … While we have overruled our precedents when subsequent cases have undermined their doctrinal underpinnings, … we do not believe that this has happened to the Miranda decision. If anything, our subsequent cases have reduced the impact of the Miranda rule on legitimate law enforcement while reaffirming the decision’s core ruling that unwarned statements may not be used as evidence in the prosecution’s case in chief.”

Do you think Roberts would follow the jurisprudential path paved by Rehnquist in Dickerson when it comes to Roe v. Wade (1973)?

Biskupic: I think Roberts would offer something less than the endorsement Rehnquist gave Miranda. The chief might come as close to overruling Roe as possible without explicitly overruling it.

Question: As you point out, Roberts has long been concerned about “racial balancing.” In his majority opinion in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007), he wrote: “The principle that racial balancing is not permitted is one of substance, not semantics. Racial balancing is not transformed from ‘patently unconstitutional’ to a compelling state interest simply by relabeling it ‘racial diversity.’”

Currently, there are several affirmative action cases in the lower courts, including Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. Among other things, that case raises the question of whether the court should overrule its precedents and hold that Title VI forbids any consideration of race by a federally funded university.

How do you think the chief justice would approach this issue?

Biskupic: I covered that Harvard trial in Boston, and I am sure the chief and other justices know that issue is slowly moving toward them. I believe Roberts would rule that Title VI indeed forbids any racial considerations in education. This is one area in which Roberts has been consistent since his time in the Reagan years. He abhors race-based policies, saying they do more harm than good.

Question: As you know, administrative law and the power allotted to federal agencies is an immensely important, though not “sexy,” topic. Kavanaugh has advanced some noteworthy arguments concerning statutory interpretation and administrative law. Specifically, he objects on separation-of-powers grounds to the growth of the “administrative state,” which he called the “headless fourth branch” of the government.

If an appropriate case came before the court, would the chief justice embrace Kavanaugh’s view?

Biskupic: We just had oral argument on this topic, and I sensed some resistance on Roberts’ part, perhaps because of how strongly Justice Stephen Breyer and Kagan framed the issue of precedence. How much does the chief justice want to roll back the law in the volatile Trump era? I’m inclined to think Roberts would wait to reverse Auer v. Robbins, etc.

Question: Should the court ever be reconstituted with a 6-3 conservative-liberal split, do you think that would affect Roberts’ ability to influence the direction of the law?

Biskupic: Yes, it would change his current position at the exact ideological center of the bench and put him – strange to say – more on the “left.” But even as I witnessed his often-failed efforts to woo Justice Anthony Kennedy and now watch his struggles to steady the court, I would never underestimate his ability to influence people. In fact, the chief justice may already be thinking ahead to that very 6-3 possibility. You quoted Ken Starr earlier. I’ll close with another former colleague of Roberts from the Reagan era: “John Roberts has always seen everything with pristine clarity, and almost instantly,” Mike Luttig told me.

SOURCE: SCOTUSblog