4
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
Wednesday, December 11, 1968
Grass and the law
Grass, pot, marijuana, call it what you will, but it's here to stay. And it will be here to stay as long as the voodoo now associated with it, remains associated with it. Illegality has assured grass of more than a fadich life.
As with most practices forced underground, the number of marijuana users is subject to wild speculation. Some estimates set the number of users in this country at 20 million; federal authorities disagree, saying that about four to five million American have had some experience with grass.
But which ever figure is chosen as most nearly correct, one thing is clear to the most casual observer, marijuana has crossed class and cultural boundaries. Once associated only with the social dropout and his bohemian dwellings, the pervasive odor of grass has literally entered the high-rent apartment, and figuratively, if perhaps not literally, the fraternity and sorority house as well.
With the increased moral acceptance of grass comes the increased probability that its use will someday be legalized. But the time is in the distant future when the joint will replace the martini after the proverbial hard day at the office.
The most convincing argument against legalizing the use of marijuana is the un certainty that still surrounds the drug. About the only certain thing scientists have told us concerning grass is that it is not addicting.
The critic will also point to the possibility of a "psychological dependence" upon marijuana and
to the danger that blowing grass will lead to the use of more dangerous drugs, heroin, opium, et al.
However, there has been shown no direct cause-and-effect link between grass and hard drugs. Presently, the best argument the parent may give his child whom he suspects of blowing grass, is simply that the law waits around the corner if he is careless. Indeed, this advice is feeble to a generation that is skeptical, if not openly rebellious, of American social standards and even its laws.
The advocate of legalizing marijuana need only point at the hypocritical shroud around social drinking, the sacred cocktail party, and, closer to home, the institutionalized "beer bust," to make the argument against marijuana seem petty.
This is not to advocate combatting one major social problem with what potentially could be another. Rather, it is a plea for an honest assessment. If laws are needed against intoxicating drugs or drinks, they should at least be equal across the board and free of hypocritical contrails.
Laws against the use of drugs are indeed needed, but let these laws determine the situations under which drugs may be used. Stringent laws are needed not against the use of marijuana, but against the use of marijuana in situations that may endanger the lives and safety of one or more individuals.
Richard Lundquist Assistant Editorial Editor
'Balance' best of semester
By LINDA FABRY
Undoubtedly the best thing which has happened at the University Theatre this semester is the current production of Edward Albee's Pulitzer Prize winning drama "A Delicate Balance."
It is virtually impossible to argue with either Albee's brilliant script or the way it has been so professionally presented under the direction of Thomas R. Long. It has indeed been a while since the University Theatre presented a production of such high caliber.
Though Albee's play is fairly young, it has, in a relatively short time, proved a favorite among theater audiences. Opening in New York in Sept. 1966, "A Delicate Balance" ran 132 performances and only eight months later the 38-year-old Albee was awarded the Pulitzer Prize.
“Delicate Balance” is a fascinating play but it does prove a bit trying, slightly cathartic, for an audience. Just as the characters at the end of the play seem to have a feeling of relief, so the audience feels relieved, in a sense, when the play is finally over. Viewing the play is an exercise, but not nearly so exhausting as Albee's famous “Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?”
"Delicate Balance" is not an easy play to do at the college level; in terms of roles it is quite a challenge. The characters are difficult and they
The play deals with a kind of balanced extremes, a mixture of opposing elements which create a great deal of irony. One can find in the play the ridiculous but it is most always accompanied by the almost tragic. The character of Claire, for example, who the audience is always laughing at, is certainly as tragic as she is funny. What Albee has done is to strike a balance between all opposing forces.
require actors with a certain amount of maturity. It is not a play of ingenues-the youngest character is 36.
The cast of the play was excellent; there is no doubt about that. It is difficult to imagine how and in what way they could have done a better job than they did. The almost "perfection" of the production was a pleasant surprise.
In every show there is usually what is so nicely dubbed "a show stealer," and in "Delicate Balance," Cherie Shuck playing the alcoholic, clairvoyant Claire, deserves the title. Miss Shuck was excellent beyond all imagination, playing her role with a maturity unusual for a college undergraduate. Were the show a bad one, it would still be sorgh to go just to see Miss Shuck.
Janet Jensen as Agnes, a lonely wife, and Eugene Cassassa as her quiet husband Tobias, both turned in performances well up to the production. They easily crossed the age barrier and played their 60-year-old characters with fantastic compassion.
As Edna and Harry, the close friends who move in with Agnes and Tobias, Cheryl Burnet and Neil Fenter contributed their share to the success of the performance. Miss Burnet executed her role marvelously but she did fail to make one tearful scene believable.
Billi Dawn Wolf as julie, the daughter home after her fourth unsuccessful marriage, also did a fine job. It was difficult to believe, however, that Miss Wolf was playing an immature 36-year-old. She seemed to be no more than a teenager.
"A Delicate Balance" is the University of Kansas Theatre nomination for the American College Theatre Festival to be held in Washington in April of next year. And if it doesn't walk away with the first prize, then I'd certainly like to see the production that does.
'Othello' excellent
Kansan Movie Review
By SCOTT NUNLEY
Laurence Olivier's Technicolor-Panavision version of Shakespeare's "Othello" opens tonight at the Varsity. Olivier's career includes several films of Shakespearean productions, but this tense, fast "Othello," may well be his fittest.
“Othello” as rousing cinema could only be rivaled by the Burtons' golden-lusty filming of “The Taming of the Shrew.”
Life-energy and color are the charms both movies evoke against the dread pall of Good Theatre. If you expect to be culturally (but boringly) elevated by either production, you will be disappointed. Fun is what's in store; action and an excellent evening's adventure.
It is principally Laurence Olivier who makes, or rather re-makes this appearance of "Othello" after, if not his own "image," then certainly after his own rich fancy.
Olivier's Moor is quite as black as the ace of (ahem) spades. There is never the slightest doubt of ambiguity in Olivier's reading of Shakespeare's term "Moor." Negro: strong, passionate, and perhaps a trifle naive in the devious ways of "civilized" men.
Othello acts, that is his normal state of being.
The slow contemplation of a Hamlet, the feudal ambition of a MacBeth, or the senile games of a Lear are not for this proud warrior general. Given a particular situation, Othello will choose to literally cut his way through the encumbering problems and arrive forcefully at a solution-by-might.
He is not, of course, a despot. As yet uncorrupted by the corrupt princes who use his military genius, Othello has the professional soldier's ethic of fair play. And his wife, Desdemona, he obviously worships with all the devotion of a single-minded child.
But Othello is still racially outcast from his noble Italian surroundings. Fear of insult, jealousy of faithlessness come instantly to the defense of the Moor's sensitive racial pride. If he has retained a fine savage nobility, he has also retained the depths of the cruelty and bloodlust."
Here Olivier's famous (and controversial) interpretation raises the worry of a flaw. Is Olivier's Moor North African in his speech and mannerisms—or is he rather West Indian?
It would, of course, be natural if an English actor should unconciously choose as his Negro type the most common Negro immigrant to the British Isles. Some audiences have complained that this Othello's lisping speech, his almost feminine grace of hand and body, his occasionally mincing stride rob the production of a powerfully masculine protagonist.
Personally, I like the contrast that Olivier creates between the catlike softnesses of Othello and the burning rages and deadly battleskill of the general.
For me, Olivier's constant and flawless attention to these details of his Moor's character suggest exotic, perhaps nomadic civilizations, and the silk tents of beautifully-strange cultures.
If Olivier chooses to interpret Shakespeare through his own creative talent, I am not going to be bound by Anglo-Saxon archetypes to criticize Olivier's version of the barbarian hero.
Although Olivier's brilliant and dominating performance of the Moor may mark off this production of "Othello" from any other, the film is no unbalanced freak.
Frank Finlay's Iago is a confident performance in itself, craftily and credibly luring the proud general to his destruction. If this production of the tragedy is not Iago's showcase, as has been when greater actors such as Olivier himself turned their powers to the villain, neither is it Iago-less. Finlay creates a solid, evil trickster who balances Othello but purposefully never blazes out to draw the attention away from the central character.
Maggie Smith's Desdemona is equally professional, but less credible.
The Moor's mistreated wife here would seem to be more at home in the company of frail English ladies than at the robust courts of Italy. Shakespeare, however, provided Miss Smith with only one scene in which to really display her heroine's fiber—and you may judge that mad singing for yourself.
"Othello"—a sadly limited appearance in Lawrence on this return from the early Sixties, and a sadly wasted evening if passed by. Go for the rich color-camerawork, or the individuality of Olivier's interpretation. Or go for the just fun of it.
Zap!!
Letter to the Editor
Neither AI's old man nor mine had the coin to purchase us a seat in the Senate or a draft deferment. Therefore, between working wives, the GI Bill and humping it nights and weekends at one of the local gas stations we manage to flounder away at Graduate School. Hence, we have been following the progress of HEW's new "dole without investigation" policy with considerable interest. Our recent dialogue on the subject went something like this:
Dole without investigation
To the Editor:
AL: I tell you, man, the gravy train is on the way. All we'll have to do is take a cab to the Dole Center and Uncle Sugar will fill our pockets with coin. I mean, just like some dumb mama who forgets to take her free pill.
ME: Well, it doesn't seem right. . .
AL: Right? When do you think this is, 1790? Nobody goes for that "self-made" smoke anymore. Everybody's at the trough today—only they call 'em "subsidies." Hell, society owes you a living just for being born. You know, the Guaranteed Annual Wage.
ME: Well, it seems to me that if everybody goes on the dole and nobody works, there isn't going to be any dole.
ME: Yes, but .
AL: Let the future generation worry about it. Look at it this way. You hump ten hours in the station and draw fifteen coin. They take a piece to pay for the Kennedy-Johnson action, cut a slice to pay givers and takers of the dole and then draw for a Social Security you probably won't live to collect, right?
AL: Next, Kansas takes a cut to pay the Governor, college
professors and highway maintenance men, so what have you got? Look, if Uncle Sugar didn't want everybody on the dole, why make it so easy?
ME: But, that's not the purpose of the new policy. . . .
AI: You know I think you've
AL: You know, I think you've
(Continued to page 5)
KANSAN
Kansan Telephone Numbers Newsroom—UN 4-3646 Business Office—UN 4-4358
A student newspaper serving the University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas.
Published at the University of Kansas daily during the academic year except holidays and examination periods. Mail subscription rates: $6 a semester. Mail enquiries: at Lawrence, Kan. 60044. Accommodations, goods, services and employment advertised offered to all students without regard to color, creed or national background. Necessary those of the University of Kansas or the State Board of Regents.