Skip to main content

“Every now and then the country goes a little wrong”


What a wonder is a gun

What a versatile invention

First of all, when you’ve a gun

Everybody pays attention

When you think what must be done

When you think what it can do:

Remove a scoundrel,

Unite a party,

Preserve the union,

Promote the sales of my book,

Insure my future,

My niche in history,

And then the world will see

That I am not a man to overlook

   Stephen Sondheim, Assassins (1990)

 

No, these words weren’t written for Kyle Rittenhouse. Or the Proud Boys. Or the Oath Keepers. They were written thirty years ago, to be sung onstage by an actor playing Charles Guiteau, the guy who shot and killed President James Garfield in 1881.

Stephen Sondheim has left us, and it doesn’t seem fair. Given all the public figures we can happily do without, we might have been spared losing someone so irreplaceable. In a year filled with bad news, this is in a special category, leaving as it does a gaping hole in the culture.

That said, it couldn’t be more eerily fitting that Assassins, his most eccentric work — in a career replete with magnificently eccentric works — is playing Off Broadway right now. At this moment in history.

I saw it. I flew to New York specifically for this production, which had been postponed over a year. It’s the first major production of a Sondheim musical since the pandemic began. And I think it’s the last one he ever attended.

Assassins is amazing in many ways. But as a comment on our fraught political climate — as a harbinger, not of things to come, but of things already here — it’s a freaking miracle.

Its premise is audacious. It brings together all nine of the warped individuals who have killed, or attempted to kill, a U.S. president.

They all have their singular motives and rationales — religious zealotry, political extremism, social awkwardness, obsessive need for attention — and all have gone to extraordinary lengths to pursue the “niche in history” they crave.

The show itself is a testament to their success in securing that niche. Each assassin represents a dark side of the American Dream. And each exposes that Dream for the sick joke it has always been. 

It’s a joke Sondheim wants us to laugh at, but not too hard. His lyrics walk a thin line between tragedy and comedy. He couches them in a score steeped in Americana, with explicit musical shout-outs to John Phillip Sousa. And he shows us the humor — barely appropriate — in this disturbing rogues’ gallery.

We know these characters. They’re as familiar to us as the buffoons and posers we see every day on cable news, social media, and the floor of Congress. We laugh at them. We mock them. And we can’t bring ourselves to take them seriously, even as they do serious damage to the country.

We see them in people like John Wilkes Booth, the famous actor, not famous for acting. He tells us how important it was to kill Lincoln so the South could be freed of tyranny, though it was more likely an overreaction to his recent spate of bad reviews. Today we’d call him a narcissist .

The Booth character eggs on the other misfits populating the stage. He suggests that the answer to their problems — that the remedy for all their failed relationships, thwarted ambitions, and poor life decisions — is to shoot a president.

In a folky duet, John Hinckley sings of his unrequited love for Jodie Foster, while Squeaky Fromme sings of hers for Charlie Manson. Through some tortured logic they alone can see, killing presidents is the ultimate proof of that love.

We meet Leon Czolgosz, a radicalized anarchist, who decides that President McKinley is too much of a capitalist tool to be allowed to live.

There’s Giuseppe Zangara, whose chronic stomach ulcer leads him to shoot at, and miss, Franklin Roosevelt.

Again we have Charles Guiteau, singer of the lyrics above, who insisted that God was his wing man when he killed Garfield, though it was Guiteau who was hanged for it.

And don’t forget Lee Harvey Oswald, who tries to spy for the Soviet Union but can’t get the Russians, or even his Russian wife, to take him seriously — so he assassinates JFK instead.

Every one of these characters is recognizable to us today. The downtrodden, the screwed over, the manipulated, the brainwashed. When the narrator sings “Every now and then the country goes a little wrong,” we can’t help but think of Trump and his base.

We’re reminded of all those who were sold on the American Dream. Who were told that hard work would always be rewarded. Who believed, as the show says, that “If you keep your goal in sight/You can climb to any height.” And who were left high and dry when the jobs disappeared and new ones never materialized.

Faced every day with dwindling opportunities, hollowed-out communities, and diminished expectations, they look for someone to blame.

The show zeroes in on those who decide to blame the president, always a convenient focus for American hate. And while these nine assassins make a small sample size, they shine a bright light on that hate. They make us realize that such hate will always demand an outlet.

We now know there are many millions of citizens with the same hate, the same need to blame, and the same peculiarly American infatuation with guns. All of which makes the current moment so menacing.

And with so many juicy targets out there — like, say, Congress — why go after someone as well-protected as the president? Near the end of the show, we see projected onto the back of the stage a montage of the January 6 insurrection.

It wasn’t necessary. By then, everyone in the audience had long since made that connection.

Assassins has always been seen as an oddity in the Sondheim canon, but it has clearly found its moment. While it will never have the stature of Sweeney Todd or Follies or Company or Sunday in the Park, it tops them all for sheer topical relevance, for being three decades ahead of its time.

The country has indeed gone wrong, and not just a little. But Assassins arrives as a welcome reminder that it’s gone wrong before, many times and in many ways. Maybe that’s comforting, maybe not.

But Sondheim was never interested in our comfort. It was insights he was after, and he left us with six decades’ worth. His work will be remembered as a cascade of insights, big and small, each one remarkable for its richness and clarity.

We’re lucky to have them. Even if we can’t have him.

 

P.S.  Two of my biggest heroes — lifelong friends I never met — have died in the last year. I wrote in December 2020 of John le Carré, whose last novel, recently published, only sharpens the pain of his passing.

But Sondheim is likewise a towering figure in my life, as all who know me can attest. I absorbed my first Sondheim lyric at age ten, listening to West Side Story after school on my dad’s stereo, endlessly.

Sondheim and le Carré were giants who transcended their genres. Both attained virtuosic mastery of the English language. Both were shrewd and caustic observers of the human condition. Both resisted the lure of pop culture and commercial compromise. Both set impossibly high standards for their art. And both leave behind a body of work that we mere mortals can only envy, and — lucky for us — return to again and again.

Comments

  1. What a wonderful comparative relation of art and the sad state of society, just spectacularly written. This should be in the NYT. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is Ted. This is your best. Obviously from pain and from the heart. Maybe we need to invent a prize, perhaps called the Ziggy, for one who "gets it" and says it in a way that every word is necessary and there are no superfluities. Onward, Mensch!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks for once again, finding the right words to describe the moment. Sondheim is a hero of mine as well, and like you, a master wordsmith.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm only getting to this today, but, several hours before even opening it, I wondered... Will Andy somehow find a way to fit Sondheim into his Left Jabs blog? Having just read it, all I can say is "Duh, of course he can."

    BTW, I have trouble making comments sometimes. I just found this solution which worked for me. Scroll down to the first A:
    https://discussions.apple.com/thread/8544042

    ReplyDelete
  5. Bravo! And yes, I say that the historical context you provide here, together with tributes to Sondheim and le Carré, gives comfort that all is not lost.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Dobbs is Just the Bludgeon We’ve Been Looking For

I recently had occasion to engage in a brief political discussion with a bright and well-spoken woman in her mid-twenties. She was clearly perturbed at what she considered the failure of Democrats to push through the progressive agenda she and her generation have long been promised. I felt her pain, knowing how hard the next twenty or thirty years will be for her age group, not just in this country, but planetwide. She will surely be a witness to spontaneous atrocities, environmental calamities, and a competition for dwindling resources that will reduce many of her fellow humans to savagery. At the same time, I was embarrassed — as I often am — that I’m passing along to her a nation in far worse shape than it was when I found it. Even so, I felt she was being a bit hard on the Democrats in power, most of whom have, more or less, behaved admirably in pursuing basically the same agenda as hers, even as they remain shackled to a constitutional system on the very c

Putin’s Information Bubble Springs a Leak

The cat is out of the bag. The Russian citizenry can now be quite sure there’s a real war on, with real people dying. Something about a 300,000-man military draft — more likely a million — serves to focus the mind. It was only a matter of time before even the most brainwashed of parents would figure out that their sons were highly likely to be blown to pieces sometime soon. Who would have thought Putin’s hermetically-sealed information bubble would be pierced, not by liberals or intellectuals or human rights activists, but by the militant right? I suppose it does make a certain weird sense. The left has either fled the country, gone to jail, or — in most cases — opted to shut up and lay low for a decade or so. So it’s the far right that, curiously, is giving Putin the most heartburn. Specifically, it’s the ultra-militarist bloggers on Telegram — boasting millions of followers — who are reporting from the front lines of the war. And they’re telling it like it

They’re Using ‘Trump’ and ‘Espionage’ in the Same Sentence

It isn’t every day that a former president gets investigated for espionage. One more first for Donald Trump. Yes, we’ve all been titillated by every sordid new development in the ongoing saga of the Mar-a-Lago files. But the big question, at least for me, remains: What was he thinking? Why would he take state secrets out of the White House, knowing full well it’s a felony? Not that he’s a stranger to felonies, but still. The press has focused mainly on the make-believe theories thrown up by the wingnut right to explain away the obvious. But I’ve not seen much on the espionage angle itself. Which is strange. Because the very word ‘espionage’ puts an unmistakably sinister spin on Trump’s motives. It’s not a word that either CIA or DOJ throws around a lot. But it’s a word both are using. If there’s one thing we’ve learned about Trump it’s that life is about transactions, about trading favors. He is, by nature, a quid in search of the perfect pro quo. So while we don’t know how s