Thoughts on the day

Today is Sunday, and I feel determined to write more often in this blog. Somehow it seems important to my artistic development.

Welcome Back

So. It has been a while. Truly, you must be my faithful readers.

School has resumed, and it has sucked the majority of time down the drain, though I have to say that metaphor isn't quite accurate. The drain implies waste, but I fel I am learning more this year than I have in quite some time. So, more later.

I promise.

The Big Questions

1. What is the responsibility of the artist?
2. What socio-cultural relevance does art have, outside of pure entertainment value?
3. What, if anything, can art truly accomplish?
4. Is theater dead, and what can we do to revive it? Is it even possible?

So, there we go. The Big Questions.

The responsibility of the artist in accordance to what? Society? Himself/herself? That is a clear distinction that needs some clarification. I will answer the question in terms of Society, as I'm not sure anyone can really place a quantifiable or classifiable answer on the responsibility one has to oneself.

If an artist is going to ask anything of society, then there is an inherent responsibility of the artist to provide something of net worth to society. If you want society to pay you, to provide housing, stipend, space, whatnot and whathaveyou, then there has to be a return on the investment of society. It is at that moment that the masturbatory action of art (making art purely for the self with no regard to the impact or involvement of society as audience) becomes puerile and wasteful. And in my opinion, the more an artist requests from society, the more he/she is required to provide, and the more relevance to societal questions the art needs to have.

Okay, Question two.  Socio-cultural relevance. Big words. I'm almost intimidated, but I won't allow my colloquial self to go down without a fight. I think there is an intrinsic value to art, in a socio-cultural manner, and I would argue that to be communication. There is a reason that metaphors exist, and is it ridiculous to postulate that art is the greatest sense of the metaphor? In a secondary sense, I would also argue that art has a great capacity to initiate thought and stimulate feelings/emotions. As far as entertainment goes, I feel there is an implicit value to entertaining art because it allows art to encapsulate a larger audience and introduce them to your way of thinking. A way to preach beyond the choir, is perhaps the best way to say what I'm trying to say. Especially in this contemporary age, where there are so many methods of artistic delivery which have espoused a pure entertainment value approach, I think Art (with a capital A) tries to eliminate any sense of "entertainment" value in order to further distance Art from (for lack of a better word) crass commercialism masquerading as art.

I think the most that one can hope for art, alone, to accomplish is a inciting a different mindset. Art cannot change the word, but it can catalyze people into changing something.

Theatre isn't dead. Theatre is just stupid right now. And to revive it, we need to treat it like theatre. We need to see why it is theatre, and what reason the shows we want to put on are put on in the theater and not in the cinema, or not as a painting. We need to understand the wide variety of medium available and understand that to ignore the power of theatre, the tools of theatre causes it to go unused and rot. For the past hundred and twenty years, we have seen realism and proto-realism and pseudo-realism completely dominate American Theatre, and until that begins to relent in some way, we won't see anything but more of the same, and that more of the same is the death of theatre. Theatre lives on newness and innovation, and we've forgotten that. Also, contemporary theatre is like Velveeta Cheese. We've been feeding our audiences this bland processed chemical crap for so long, they don't know what else to do expect, and blanche when given actual cheese. We need to educate our audiences, and do it in a way that doesn't penalize them. We need to attract people to theatre because it's theatre, not admonish them. This, in a sense, ties into the ideas above about needing to provide entertaining theatre. There has to be a hook, you know?

Well, there are my answers for today. I'm going to reserve full right to completely change my mind next week, but for now, that's what I believe.

A quote to think on

"I began to feel that the theatre was not only inadequate, it was evasive; it did not wish to draw upon its deeper potentialities... It aimed to be soothing."
- Thorton Wilder

My Bucket's Got a Hole Innit

My dear friends and faithful readers, I apologize for the delay in my posting. I have been preoccupied over the past few days with an increasing frustration built on my own petty envies and jealousies. I want theatre to be bigger and bolder than it is, and I get infantly angry when I look at other arts, other entertainment, other people, getting money and/or attention.

On the opening of the Olympics, I had to take a moments pause. The average Olympian (while I may say average, know that's still a mean feat. (I am so sorry for the puns...)) isn't able to train/prepare for the Olympics without assistance. But the United States government and various big businesses (and a host of erstwhile sponsors)provide the means and ways of allowing an athlete to hold a job and prepare for his/her competitions. Most major schools offer scholarships for athletes. All of this, it got me a-thinking. I won't, for one minute suggest these peoples don't deserve scholarships and such. I think of athletes with a high regard. I am pretty sure there is a cultural prerogative in the United States to perceive athletes as the paragons of humanity, and I find it hard to rise above that cultural pressure.

All of this leads me to saying what I want to say, which is, why don't we have a similar mindset for artists? Would it be so difficult to rework the patronage method?

Okay, well, think on that for now, chew up and down, and I am going to listen to my good friend Jenny's play be read. Go visit her at theoffcenter.com Tomorrow, I will be looking at answering her post, The Big Questions.

Cheers.

Noir Theatre?

Okay, so first an excuse.... I don't have internet at my house, so I can't quite yet get around to posting any actual replies to the comments, but it has bee lovely getting them. Welcome, new readers.

So, Noir theatre...

We'll, let us think back to the elements I posited as requisite for Noir. Can they be put on stage in a manner that allows the art form to be more than an homage?

I mean, certainly, insomuchas there is totally room for violence and eroticism on stage, mysteries happen, and brutality has been rather commonplace since Oedipus plucked his eyes out. I'd say, sure. Noir can happen... Sort of.

I think the visual aesthetic is very strong, especially from the film aspect of Noir. I don't have a strong answer for replicating that on stage... Perhaps i'll come up with something tonight in the dreamland...

A reply to an earlier comment

Okay, so, sometimes I am technologically incompetent and a bit lazy, so I'm not sure how to go about replying to comments via email.

SO... A little ways in the past, there was a comment about wanting to franchise black box theatres across the United States, and while that is an admirable notion, theatre to the masses and al, there is an intrinsic problem with theatre, that theatre doesn't gain any advantages with an economy of scale. Big shows are always more expensive. Always. Even for big theatres producing a host of shows, the big shows are expensive.

Every actor, ideally, requires a living wage for the entirety of the production, and that's expensive. So are sets and electricity and play rights... Theatre is, when we imagine it as fully produced, expensive... And if we want society to pay for it, we need to figure out a method of translating that cost into a worth to society beyond pure entertain, and more broad tan elitist Art.

Okay. Response done.

Noir, defined. Ish.

It has been somewhat more difficult than I originally thought, coming up with a definition for noir. It seems to have been something which has eluded critics and thinkers alike. Although, I'd venture the chief point has been their inability to find a definition that works for everyone.

But, here goes my attempt: noir, first off, refers merely to the film genre, not really the literature. Of course, at no time in my research did I come across any mention of theatre delving into the Noiric arts. The movement (or style (as Thomas Schatz would have you) or genre or what-have-you(Alain Silver refers to Noir as a cycle, or a phenomena, that the noir mood was a period with relative geographic and temporal boundaries)) began in the United States as a literary art form known as Hardboiled, which would also become known, later, as Pulp, due to the cheap printing that normally accompanied it. This was the world of Dashiell Hammett and Raymond Chandler, and was typified by generally dark themes particularly those which emphasize moral ambiguity and sexual motivation. There seems to be a need in the noir for an unsentimental portrayal of sex violence and crime.

The Hardboiled fiction of the thirties gave birth to the "Classic" (and to some, only) period of noir films, from late thirties through the late fifties. Certain critics have argued that all Noir films following that period have only been as homage or allusion, and not qualifiable as Noir. I happen to argue that is hogwash.

Okay, enough of the history, you say, what makes up Noir? At one point in my reading, five words were tossed out as elements of noir (though written directly after was the phrase that most noirs have even some of these elements, and rarely all five... So why?... Anyway) oneiric, strange, erotic, ambivalent, and cruel. I didn't know what oneiric meant, and it means pertaining to dreams. The stereotypical notion of Noir seems to entail the protagonist being a Private Eye, a gumshoe, but the reality isn't quite true. Sure, Hammett and Chandler relied on the character as a private eye, but Cain (a later writer) relied on a less heroic lead with more emphasis on psychological exposition rather than crime solving. Indeed, most film noir was more likely to have a lead as a victim, or a person directly connected to the crime or problem in question.

So, Noir might not have a detective lead, but there's a crime? Well, mostly, but as stated above, there was a movement away from crime solving investigations toward psychological exposition.

But they happened in the gritty cities? No. Some did, but plenty happened in small semi-rural areas.

There is generally, and it would seem with Noir it is all general, there is a visual intricacy (principally derived from German expressionist film) and a complex voiceover driven narrative. They are sophisticated and bleak dramas (except when they're comedies) dusted with mistrust and cynicism, topped off with a generous helping of the absurd.

Noir's roots are in German Expressionism, French Poetic Realism and Italian Neo-Realism. I really don't know a heap about any of those, but I will certainly do a bit of peeking to see what is up, and push it onto here in the next few days.

Okay, so after reading this, did I figure out a definition of Noir? Not really. For me, noir deals with crime and betrayal and moral ambiguity, where people try to be Good in the face of a choice that isn't simple. The kill one to save five dilemma. But there's a sense of not taking prisoners, of actively seeking revenge when betrayed, of hitting back, at all times. Of using any and all means to win, and of having to accept different definitions to win...

Maybe I can just do as the Supreme Court has done before me... I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.

All of this, and the question remains: what the heckfire does this have to do with theatre? Well, can we translate this art form to the stage, or is it relegated to film and literature? That topic, my fine feathered friends, I think I will tackle later this week. Following German Expressionism, Italian neorealism and French PoeticRealism. Good day. Write well.

A quick note

Wow, okay. I just finished watching season three of Veronica Mars. They include on the last dvd the pitch they put together to try and attain a further season from the networks, and the easiest way to describe the change is from a hip young contemporary farce where the protagonist has to deal with her real life and her detective life to what certainly seemed like just another crime procedural... It was such a disappointment. Okay, BACK TO YOUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED PROGRAMMING OF MEDIOCRITY.

Where did Noir go?

It is amazing how good Veronica Mars is. I almost can't handle the fact that the season and series is over. I found it a refreshing island of something new in the world of story telling. Noir, in my mind, is one of the most fascinating arenas of storytelling, and I love it.

There's just something so..... Deep about it. So painful. The noir hero is so conflicted and broken. They/he/she make mistakes and feel the terrible consequences of the choices they make. Sex and violence are bosom buddies. Everyone betrays everyone, and the secrets are deep and deadly.

And contemporary noir! How much potential can there be! There's so much perceived danger, paranoia, it's incredible, and unexploited.

It would seem to me, Noir has had a cultish following in recent years, but hasn't really seen a deep cultural popularity since its birth in the post-war years. So why? Every once in a while, some noir tale pops up and is lavished with praise and delight. I mean, I'm a little biased. I love noir.

My question for this evening is: how can we, and I use the pejorative we lightly to imply those of us playing in the theatrical sandbox, harness Noir for plays?

Tomorrow, I will take a bit of time to write out some of the characteristics that define noir to me, and in the following posts, I will see if I can explore how stage plays might romp in this gleefully dark genre.

Great Theatre

Sometimes we can find ourselves on the site of a phenomenal dramatic event. The quirky fates which seem to control the flows of the universe manage to put on some glorious bits of life.

Karoake is a great example of free fate based theatre. Live-ish music, awkward and usually desperate social interactions, and then, those little bits of weirdness. Tonight, for example, we have this young Hispanic woman, looking rather out of place amongst the wealthy pale elite of Westport. What's interesting with her is some tertiary facts, i.e., she is pregnant. In a bar. With a drink in one hand and a cigarette in the other. And is clearly being ignored (and is upset at this) by the guy with the overpriced jeans, slick hair, and clever orange hair...

(on a side note, the gentleman currently singing is atrocious)

These sorts of characters exist in life, and one of my favorite pastimes is making up their stories. Inviting them into my little universe, the one I control in my slice of mind. I credit this with helping out my playwrighting. Next time you find yourself out people watching, look around and allow the characters you see to permeate your brain, and set them free on the page.

Let's take the people I see here. The Hispanic lady, I think her name is Gloria. The guy she's here with is Thomas. Thom, as he goes by, is playing beer pong with his high school buddies, who are closer to him now than family Lives with his parents, works in the City. Gloria is a supposedly surrogate mother, secretly pregnant with Thom's baby and in a twisted, and ultimately passive aggressive, move, she smokes and drinks in order to damage the poor kid.

I sometimes wonder if I am the only one who does this sort of thing. I do it a lot. Perpetually really. And it can be a bit of a problem when the stories I've concocted don't mesh with the greater reality, and I get a bit confused about what is what. What I came up with, and what they came up with.. But isn't that the game of the playwright?

I guess there's a grand question looming there... Why do we write? And, more specifically, why do we write for theatre? What is it about this particular medium that draws us in, and why do we sacrifice so much to do this?

I am going to try and facilitate an answer to this question somewhere in the coming days...

Breaking News

I am writing another book to a musical, and I am a bit afraid. I don't want to fall into the trap of crating a worthless piece of trash that exists only to make money and provide a modicum of entertainment. I'd like to follow the tenets I have espoused, the ideas I try and believe in.

I was reading an interview with a number of playwrights in the last issue of American Theatre, and I found a rather insightful thought: theatre, by virtue of its place in contemporary society, needs to be bigger and more important. We ask our audience to make increasingly larger sacrifices in order to attend our productions. We need to offer a product that is worth the forty, eighty, hundred dollars, we are asking for tickets. We can't put on something that can be shown on television, just another procedural or a crass commercial event. When we write a play, and ultimately I realize the we must be sublimated to an I, must take a look at the topic, the story, the characters, the show itself and ask the question, "Is what I'm offering enough to justify the sacrifice I am asking so many others to make?"

Is it?

Think about what we are asking. Not just the audience members, but also al the people required to put the show together. Director, designers, riggers, carps, electricians, costumers, assistants, interns, actors, understudies, box office staff, marketers, and so on and so forth. It is a huge undertaking. Does a play so incredibly about your personal experience which no one can relate to, does that rate the sacrifice? Does a broad comedy about sexual shenanigans within a golf office?

I just feel there needs to be more, and I will probably still write plays that are a bit to small, bit too personal... But I'm going to try to keep that in mind, that for my plays to be fully realized, I have to ask a lot of other people...

Stagedoor Manor

This is a very interesting documentary. I highly advise all people looking for a life in theatre or living a life in theatre, to take a peek.

"Where are all those people who move chairs?"

There is such an emphasis on the styles of theatre that are so godawful. But can we expect our children to cut their teeth on Beckett and Ionesco? Simpler theatre for youth, perhaps. But when and where can we show them that "Mame" is not the bee knees of theatre? Is that the function of college? I will say that, should I ever get the honor of teaching younger children about stagecraft, I promise to push the envelope and not put musicals above everything else.

This is the appropriate time to unleash a little secret. I like musicals. There is so much power in the combination of live music and live acting. A person singing right in front of you is capable of such powerful emotion. I think, perhaps, the contemporary musicals are not being responsible in their themes or topicality. I mean, "Legally Blonde", really? Or even more frightening, "Spiderman: the musical." Apparently coming soon, helmed by Julie Taymor, to replace the juggernaught of "Young Frankenstein". Dear Lord, where are we headed.

But that still leaves the key question of the day, how can we teach theatre to the youth sans the elemental problems of the theatre of the dead. The theatre of the undead. The shuffling decay of pointless trivial theatre, where Broadway is held up as the pinnacle of American Theatre... How do we lead them to see the need for invigorating stimulating theatre?

Sometimes I feel I'm not equipped to answer the questions I ask. But isn't that a sign of wanting more? Of reaching out for greater knowledge?

I hope so.

Realism continued

So after a little reading and thinking, I have the short answer to the definition of realism. Realism: (dramatic arts) a movement towards greater fidelity to real life.

Realism

So, here I am, tasked with writing a realistic play, which begs the question, what is realism? What are the rules by which I must play in order to get a passing grade. While I am familiar with the notion of realism, we are, by no means, close friends. I've avoided writing in that style because I feel it represents, among other things, what is killing contemporary American Theatre. How can I bring myself, even in an exercise, to write something I perceive as so awful and, for lack of a better word, dangerous?

A New Test

I recently acquired a new phone, and I am excited to have it, like any gadget, it takes a significant amount of getting used to. Here is the first of, hopefully, many new posts.

The Problem of Defining Theater

And theatre is you run the risk of limiting theatre. And as I use this mild public forum to lash out in childish frustration upon the topic I don't understand. I don't get it. It being the play selection of any theatre these days, from my school to the major regionals to broadway.

I do want something different. I want there to be a reason to go to theatre again, more than just because it's there. I want to be excited by theatre again. Is that so much to ask?

As I said I was going to answer the question- What is theatre?- I suppose I will. In my estimation, theatre is a performance that happens in front of an audience, the bulk of the performance being live, happening right there.

And if that's the whole definition, well, what then separates it from dance? Or just basic performance art? I'm open to other ideas here. Anything?

On a final note, a received a contradictory note from a former playwrighting professor, in which he told me to stop writing new plays in order to focus on rewriting the ones I have already written. But, he also mentioned that he wanted me to try writing a fully realistic play in order that I might see the full power and potential of realism (I would guess in his mind above and beyond the other available genres of theatre available).

I haven't written anything in a while, and I'm thinking of trying to bust out of this writing slump by putting together a realism piece. What will it teach me? Who knows. Who knows. Of course, it begs the question, what is realism?

Next time: what is realism?

#
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Tackling a Difficult Question...

... Which is: "What is Theatre?"

I'm not sure. Quite the answer. Six years of school and six of professional life and that's the short answer.

To be clear, theater is a building, theatre is the art form.

What is theatre then? Well, there are some intrinsic elements that I feel must be accounted for. Theatre is a performance. The bulk of a piece needs to be made up of a live performance, though I fully understand and realize the need to explore the convergence of theatre with other media in this day and age. But there needs to be something more than just performance. What can we point out to differentiate theatre from contemporary performance pieces, or modern dance? Is it story? Is it themes? Visual flair? Perhaps avant-garde theatre and modern dance are so close as to be indistinguishable.

I want theatre to have a story, and to have a point. I want theatre to mean something, because if I'm going to give up my time and money (which is an increasingly larger quantity each time I'm asked to go to a show), I want something bigger, bolder, something that means more than the procedurals gracing the television. I want more than the clever plotting and solid realism dancing across the silver screen. I want my theatre (dare I say all theatre) to take advantage of the fact that it is theatre, that it has inherent advantages over television and film and radio. I want my theatre to finally admit that realism is a vein more apt to be plumbed in film, not theatre. Film does it so well, why must we exist in this world where realism is still trying to be king on stage. Please. Stop it already. But you won't. We won't. The train is rolling.

I won't sit here and rail against realism, as much as I might want to, BUT why can't people take a moment and look at what theatre has to offer? Live actors! Right there. Feet away from the audience. Realism asks us to put a wall there, that infamous fourth one. They ask the audience to pretend, to enter into that Devil's Pact of make believe, that what we see on stage is real. That Hedda Gabler's cabinets are full of dishes and the like. But we know that's not Hedda Gabler. Or Roma. Or anyone but Kevin Kline. Or Jennifer Garner. But we can't say that. There's no acknowledging that in realism. Because it's real.

But here's the catch. The rub. The sandpaper against your bum:

It's not real. The play is just as contrived as anything.

Now don't get me wrong, I won't say realism has no place in theatre, I just think there's too much of it- I dare say I hold the over saturation of realism in the market to be one of the key factors in the (and I recognize the oxymoronic nature of this) increasing decline of American Theatre. There, I said it. Not an answer to what is theatre, but perhaps the start of uncovering my frustration.

Okay, I'm off for the night and will return with more when I can.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

What is Art? (Part 2)

Today was a good day.

I spent the better part of it wandering around New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art, which has the very best price to culture ratio. This wandering allowed me to really take time to think about the nature of Art. There's a full spectrum of visual thrills available, as Art from most, if not all, periods of Western history are on display. From ancient Egypt to Monet and beyond.

What, then, is Art?

I know it when I see it? In some senses, I wish there was some strong delineation between art and not, but exclusivity breeds elitism, not Art, not creativity. I think good art separates put by being an item that truly provokes thought or emotion. Art should strive to invite the viewer/spectator/audience member out of their comfort zone. It's an invitation to explore new thoughts and concepts, to view our world from a different perspective.

Some Art does this better than others, some is exceptionally effective for person A, and merely two blue lines for person B. Can we say art must effect everyone? There's a glorious freedom in art, and putting up boundaries destroys the garden.

I know what I want Art to be, but the big question is, I guess, do I know what I want Theatre to be?
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

A quote

"In Tara Donovan's phenomenological art, the mundane meets the miraculous; the inanimate appears organic, almost alive; and an aesthetic simplicity of subtle forms is ingeniously achieved from a vast conglomeration of consumer goods."
- Met Wall

Hot. Just hot. Both the art and the words written about it. Taking the mundane and making it extraordinary.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

What is Art? Pt 1

The precursor to what is Theatre, I think it's time I try and define Art. What is it? Where are the boundaries between Art and, well, not-art? Things that masquerade as art, say, crass commercial movies or theatre?

But then what about Pop Art? Found Art? Can I hang Duchamp out to dry?

I'm at the Metropolitan Museum of Art to come up with an answer. More on this as events warrant.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

An Amazing Read

Someday, I hope to be as eloquent as this man, Mike Daisey.

A wild and wooly Saturday Night

Friends,

I've been thinking. Is there hope for a renewed exciting theatre of vitality? Is theatre going to die out?

I can't answer the first question, but I think I can take a stab at answering the second. It's a statement you hear all the time. Well, at least I seem to hear it often. "Theatre is dead." I'm pretty sure I said something akin to it just the other day. Well, let's take a quick moment and clarify the dead part of that phrase. There is a book, written by a man named Peter Brook, "The Empty Space". In it, Brook explores and explains some forms of theatre he has seen throughout the world. One in particular struck me, and it's the Dead Theatre. This is the empty Theatre, the shallow fluff dancing about Broadway and redolent in most major regional American Theatres. I think that most people, when saying that theatre is dying they imply theatre will face the same fate as radio when television came about, not that all theatre will resemble Brook's frightening vision.
So, will theatre die? Can theatre die? Theatre originated in every culture, more or less organically. All over the world, theatre sprang up. It seems to be an intrinsic part of human society. That shared moment, the shared four dimensional tale unfolding in front of us. There's an energy that theatre expresses which is lacking in all other forms of art. I mean, this line of discussion would require a rough tangent into defining theatre and art and dance and performance, but let's take a moment and wonder about the difference between a film and a play. Similar in some senses, but most assuredly not the same.

Theater won't die, and it will always surprise. It will delight and antagonize and frustrate and make me really angry. But that's because I love it, and I want it to be so much better than it is.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

My Lengthy Departure From the Blogosphere

Good day fellow citizens.

The quick answer is, I'm sorry I was gone so long. I've been debating heady issues in my fevered brain here. But I have no answers. I have a rant. A belief. A call to arms? To pens maybe.

I come to you today with a heavy heart. I have begun to question what I am doing in this particular art form. I'm going to say this here, now:

Contemporary American Theatre is in a state of torpid decay, yet boldly striding forward as its flesh sloughs off its bones.

As Peter Brook would say, it is dead theatre. I think, and I'm not alone in saying this, that the current atmosphere of American Theatre is not dead, not dying- it's in a state past dead. There's a way to describe this, if you'll allow me a small migration into pop culture references. The theatre has moved beyond death, risen from the grave, and actively hunts and eats any other living theatre. We're witnessing, in no uncertain terms, the birth and unhappy life of the "Zombie Theatre."

I'd love to coin that term. Am I the first to say it? Maybe. I haven't looked. But I feel it fits. I feel the contemporary theatre scene is disgusting and feted. A corpse bloated on feeding on itself. We see big theatres propagating the same few shows, over and over again. There's no active innovation. Nepotism is the Watchword of the day.

Big theatres look for innovative shows elsewhere, then swoop down and eat them, the resultant excrement being termed New Theatre.

We, the young playwrights, have no hope in the bloated face of the heavily established playwright. Husbands and wives of Artistic Directors or Trustees are on the production cue. You pay your dues in the board room or the bedroom to attain the lofty post of Captain of the artistic ship.

We fools still try and parade around the stage. We fools think our small houses and free plays and showcases will somehow do something. We think BIG will show up. That Broadway, Seattle Rep, Trinity Rep, Lincoln, Kennedy, that we'll be invited to join the country club. We fools with our theatre companies promising to invigorate or excite or innovate or push. Oh how we push that envelope. How we move that border and envigorate Theatre in New York. Seattle. Chicago. Los Angeles. Miami. Anytown, anywhere. Look at us. We fools. Really. Look. Did you go see the fools? Did it change you? What did you see?

Debt.
Desperation.
Dedication to a cause and a movement.
Direction? No where.

We're not asked to join this party. American Theatre isn't meant for us. I don't have enough money to be artistic. To be creative. To be misunderstood. I don't have enough friends to be produced, or to invigorate.

I have this pen. I have this stack of plays. I have nothing this Zombie wants, except my physical body. To sacrifice my body on their twisted altar, burning my flesh and spilling my blood to put their shows on. So a third rate hack can have one more feather in his production hat.

As I write this, I question my continued involvement in this sad charade of Art. I'm not even sure it qualifies as entertainment. Drivel. Pure drivel.

The looming question is, "what do we do?"

Do we go out and support the floundering theatre companies? Do we turn to Performance Art and nail ourselves on crosses plunged into Southern California beaches? Do we run to other countries, hoping their nationalized theatre for the masses will open their arms and let us suckle at their federal teat? Do we ask our own Congressmen and women and, dare I say it, President, to care about Performing Arts? Can we hope for Obama to add Arts spending to his ever centering platform? Do we bury our heads in the sand? Do we run away? Do we change it from the inside?

I have no answers on this gloomy night. I have no words of wisdom. I have a cloud of doubt and fear, with what looks like a long dark and lonely road ahead.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Test Failed

I tried to email a photo, but it appears blogger doesn't quite support that function yet. Oh well.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

EW Classic Movie List

So, below is the list of the 100 movies Entertainment Weekly considers new classics. The ones in bold are the ones I've seen. I've seen a lot of them. And quite a few are not on my list of classics. But, anyways. I see a lot of movies I guess.

1. Pulp Fiction (1994)
2. The Lord of the Rings trilogy (2001-03)
3. Titanic (1997)
4. Blue Velvet (1986)
5. Toy Story (1995)
6. Saving Private Ryan (1998)
7. Hannah and Her Sisters (1986)
8. The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
9. Die Hard (1988)
10. Moulin Rouge (2001)
11. This Is Spinal Tap (1984)
12. The Matrix (1999)
13. GoodFellas (1990)
14. Crumb (1995)
15. Edward Scissorhands (1990)
16. Boogie Nights (1997)
17. Jerry Maguire (1996)
18. Do the Right Thing (1989)
19. Casino Royale (2006)
20. The Lion King (1994)
21. Schindler's List (1993)
22. Rushmore (1998)
23. Memento (2001)
24. A Room With a View (1986)
25. Shrek (2001)
26. Hoop Dreams (1994)
27. Aliens (1986)
28. Wings of Desire (1988)
29. The Bourne Supremacy (2004)
30. When Harry Met Sally... (1989)
31. Brokeback Mountain (2005)
32. Fight Club (1999)
33. The Breakfast Club (1985)
34. Fargo (1996)
35. The Incredibles (2004)
36. Spider-Man 2 (2004)
37. Pretty Woman (1990)
38. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)
39. The Sixth Sense (1999)
40. Speed (1994)
41. Dazed and Confused (1993)
42. Clueless (1995)
43. Gladiator (2000)
44. The Player (1992)
45. Rain Man (1988)
46. Children of Men (2006)
47. Men in Black (1997)
48. Scarface (1983)
49. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000)
50. The Piano (1993)
51. There Will Be Blood (2007)
52. The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad (1988)
53. The Truman Show (1998)
54. Fatal Attraction (1987)
55. Risky Business (1983)
56. The Lives of Others (2006)
57. There's Something About Mary (1998)
58. Ghostbusters (1984)
59. L.A. Confidential (1997)
60. Scream (1996)
61. Beverly Hills Cop (1984)
62. sex, lies and videotape (1989)
63. Big (1988)
64. No Country For Old Men (2007)
65. Dirty Dancing (1987)
66. Natural Born Killers (1994)
67. Donnie Brasco (1997)
68. Witness (1985)
69. All About My Mother (1999)
70. Broadcast News (1987)
71. Unforgiven (1992)
72. Thelma & Louise (1991)
73. Office Space (1999)
74. Drugstore Cowboy (1989)
75. Out of Africa (1985)
76. The Departed (2006)
77. Sid and Nancy (1986)
78. Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)
79. Waiting for Guffman (1996)
80. Michael Clayton (2007)
81. Moonstruck (1987)
82. Lost in Translation (2003)
83. Evil Dead 2: Dead by Dawn (1987)
84. Sideways (2004)
85. The 40 Year-Old Virgin (2005)
86. Y Tu Mamá También (2002)
87. Swingers (1996)
88. Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery (1997)
89. Breaking the Waves (1996)
90. Napoleon Dynamite (2004)
91. Back to the Future (1985)
92. Menace II Society (1993)
93. Ed Wood (1994)
94. Full Metal Jacket (1987)
95. In the Mood for Love (2001)
96. Far From Heaven (2002)
97. Glory (1989)
98. The Talented Mr. Ripley (1999)
99. The Blair Witch Project (1999)
100. South Park: Bigger Longer & Uncut (1999)

An update

I haven't done any writing for quite some time, almost two months. I can tell I'm itching to do some, but nothing has sprung out to whip me into a scribing frenzy. I wanted to do a rewrite of an old screenplay, but I haven't mustered the chutzpah to throw down. I think I'm really stifled when I lack a place to work, beyond sitting in my bed with my computer on my lap. I need a desk or a table, and preferably a comfortable chair.

That's my life in a nutshell. Headed out to Westport for ten days of hard physical labor in honor of Dionysus. (And cold hard cash I guess).
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

"The Happening"

Someone needs to explain to me why I keep going to see movies by M. Night Shamylan. I've seen all the movies he's made, and been sorely disappointed by all but his first major release.

Now, I'll say here that I think he is a capable director. The movies are generally well shot and, usually in spite of the screenplay, well paced. The chief problem is the writng. I think the screenplays have to be the problem. The stories are usually really intriguing, but the execution of the story into a film almost universally misses its mark.

"The Happening" presents an interesting survival movie, but there is no oppurtunity for the protagonists to be proactive, and their eventual survival (it's a M. Night film, so you know it'll have a happy ending) is not a result of their actions, but of the world around them. They could have done nothing, in essence, and the end result would have been the same. To me, that made me rather bored. I just didn't care by the end. Also, the movie is remarkably short, mainly because it seems as if he's managed to write a movie without a third act. In some ways, I'd argue there's just a second act, without much of a first......

On the plus side, Night didn't place himself in a cameo position, and I saw a few trailers for films that looked quite intriguing, so....
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

A short thought on villains

This blog certainly is a ramshackle affair, but I hope it is entertaining. I'll continue writing these elements of how to, merely because I believe that teaching is a great way to learn. However, I think I'm going to expand the content here. Writing is about more than just craft, it's about reality and irreverence and a whole lot more. Ultimately, it has to be about life and the world, or, at least, a reaction to what we see around us.

That said, here's my thought on villains for the day. I think the key tenet to a truly great villain is the moment of empathy that allows you to see that the villain does not consider himself (or herself) a villain. They firmly believe what they are doing is for the betterment of their world. And to me, that's the scariest damn part of it all.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Villains pt 2

So, I'm here, standing in line in a grocery store, waiting to pay for my food. First off, Mom, I have healthy food and no trans fats.

Second, for whatever reason, I started thinking about Superheroes. The superhero is a quintessential American notion... Or is it? I'll leave that question for a later date. The reason why superheroes applies to villains is because a superhero really isn't interesting until there is a supervillain of some kind to go up against. Spiderman will never have difficulty taking down street toughs.

OH HEY! My turn at the checkout! Will continue this later.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

iPod Format

I don't read my blog all that often, but I took a peek today, and I
noticed that the emails I send from my handy little iPod end up with a
strange text format. Does it bother people? I mean, it kind of bothers
me. Sometimes I'm forced to wonder... Do gadgets make life easier or
harder?

Sent from my iPod

Villains Pt. 1

There might be some people who argue otherwise, but I'm pretty sure
the villain, or antagonist, is of tantamount importance to the manner
in which a story is told. Imagine "Star Wars" without Darth Vader.
Imagine Indiana Jones without the Nazis. Imagine "Twister" without the
tornado.

Some of you reading that might think, "Twister", really? You saw that?

Yes. The reason I mention it here is because there's no hard and fast
rule that the antagonist in a story needs to be a human. I think that
is one mighty big flaw in the idea of saying Villain. The tornado is
the primary antagonist, and easily outshines the mostly pointless part
portrayed by Cary Elwes. So why do we remember the tornado and not Mr.
Elwes?

Simple. The tornado presented a heady challenge to the hero. And the
special effects. But I think it also has something to do with the
universal cultural fear of something. We all can understand the vague
concept of the destructive power of a tornado. I mean, we might not
know the exact nature of the tornado. We might not have seen,
firsthand, the destructive power of the tornado, but we can imagine
it. And it seems monstrous and insurmountable.

Perhaps, then a good question might be to query why volcanos make poor
antagonists? I propose, because they are too mountainous.

Sorry.

I think there is something overpowering about the volcano. It's too
big. Too insurmountable. We see the hero go up against the volcano,
and it just seems ridiculous.

Of course, this brings up the problem of man vs nature. As far as I've
seem, and forgive me for just using the masculine pronoun but let us
just pretend it can leap about and stand for all the genders (I mean,
isn't that the point of generalizing?), there are a few ways to
generalize protagonist vs antagonist. Man vs nature. Man vs man. And
man vs himself.

Can man ever win against Narture? I mean, the realest answer I can
think of is survival. But is that a victory or just a postponement of
the battle?

One manner in which there's a difference between, say "Dante's Peak"
and "Twister" is the goal of the protagonist. Not just survival, but
something else. And it is this something else that injects something
new to the man vs nature. See, by not just surviving, by trying to
overcome and best this element of nature, I think we, the audience can
be pulled in somehow. We see there is a possibility that victory, and
not just survival, is possible. We can feel that, and that inner
caveman is intrigued by the idea of beating nature.

You know? Survival has been played out. We want more. We want to
conquer.

Next time man vs nature again... Animals.

Sent from my iPod

One Man Shows

I've seen a couple of one person shows, and I admire the passion and
capability of a single person to think they can carry an entire
evening of entertainment/education on their own shoulders.

However, I don't think I like them. I just don't enjoy the experience,
nor the elements that are forced on the show by the restrictions of
having a single actor. Really no entrances and exits. No actual
dialogue. I don't know how to articulate it further, but I wanted to
post this note because I'm currently working a one person show, so its
on mind.

Also, note the addition of the twitter above, which will allow for
some quick short updates from the road.

Enjoy!

Sent from my iPod

Iron Man

Okay, so I'm a little late on writing this review, but one might argue
it's a miracle I'm writing up all the movies and plays I've been
reading/writing/seeing.

Iron Man was a good film to open up the summer movie season. It had
good special effects, witty one liners, and a charismatic lead
character.

I thought there were some areas to be improved, the first being the
removal of Gwynneth Paltrow, who was, in my opinion, the weakest of
the bunch.

The story. I'm not exactly familiar with the source material, so I
can't really lay claims on either its originality or its veracity.
It's rather riddled with cliches, but nothing that breaks the
proverbial bank, so to speak.

The villains were largely stock. I didn't care about them, or
sympathize with their plight.

See, this brings up an interesting question, the question of the
villain. Who can they be, who are the best villains? What elements do
they contain? Do they have similar components? That, indeed, will most
certainly be a future topic of this blog. Perhaps it will be something
I work on outside of the blog and bring a real researched essay on to
near on this topic. For now, play well, write something, and click on
some ads to make me some money.

Sent from my iPod

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

Let me begin with the blatant admission that I love Indiana Jones. He
was an iconic figure from my childhood dreams, and I have been
dreaming and hoping for more of his saga since the end of the last
film. I even, at one point, began to read the novelized versions of
the film, and got snared into reading some of the novels which dealt
with Indy's other stories. All that said, I'm not in the leagues of
many of the superfanboys out there.

Bias acknowledged, on to the review. The film was pure spectacle. That
might be what you're looking for. Not me. Boiling it down for you, if
you really enjoyed the Temple of Doom, then this flock might be a
great film for you. Me, my favorite of the original trilogy was the
Last Crusade, which had a great blend of true story telling and
special effects wizardry. This latest entry into the series could have
used more in the story department because I'm pretty sure George Lucas
spent most of his time dreaming up new and zany ways to have Indy
fight this new selection of the eponymous and free to hate enemy.
Soviets.

The films from the past (and I am not speaking in general terms of all
films from the past, but films in the Jones series) there has been a
heady deviation from reality, clearly magical realism taking place,
and that's great. I loved it. This film, IJATKOTCS (not the shortest
acronym by any means), takes reality and throws it away. At times, it
feels as if Lucas got confused, and thought he was playing in his
Star Wars sandbox. The ants come to mind.

However, the acting was generally good, and I appreciated the
reincorporation of some of the characters from previous installments.
I find this notion vital for any series, whether it be on film or
television.

The basic elements of the story are pretty interesting. The
incorporation of elements of US history are quite fun.

Good film? Can't honestly say Yes. I enjoyed the romp for the most
part, but I'm not aching to see it again.

Sent from my iPod

So I was thinking-

I've had a lot of very interesting discussions with friends about the concept of "art". Is there some answer to that brutal question, what's is art?

Art is:

Well, I don't really know. I think a perfectly reasonable, if overly vague, answer is, Art is something that makes you feel something. But does it stop there? Clouds in the sky make me feel things. Are they art? Outside of opening up a debate about nature as art and God as painter, I'm not sure I think of clouds as art. I mean, I might be wrong, but then again, I have the electronic microphone here, so this is me working through my own sense of what art comprises.

So, do we then say that art must be made by humans? What about the elephant paintings? Do they qualify as art or as a neat trick?

For me, I'd have to say that a requisite of Art for me does rely a lot on emotion. But also thought. and humanity. I think artistic pieces need to have some sense of relation to the human existence. Otherwise, we run the risk of having just pure spectacle. I'm very curious at the contemporary divide between spectacle and, because this blog focuses on theatre and such, dramatic art. (I'll talk about spectacle vs drama later)

So. Did I answer that question? What is art? No. Maybe scratched the surface, its a deep question, and I'll hit it again. Now, Indiana Jones.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Questions

I realize, as I look over a host of my posts, that I seem to ask a lot
of questions, and don't seem to offer many answers. In that regard,
and to compliment what I think I know about playwriting, I'm going to
try to answer some of the questions that I've postulated on the past.

Of course, someone is using my computer right now and I'm writing on
this, so I really don't know what questions I've postulated in the
past. I will deviate from the writing talk for a moment of gadget love
and say that the typing on this thing isn't as bad as I thought it
might be, and might actually be something I could get used to given
enough time.

Okay, so questions I will try to answer in the following week.

1. What are good jobs for writers to have?
2. How does one write well rounded characters?

Kay. There we go. I guess I will also try writing a fee articles fo
online publications. Anything I'm search of the almighty dollar. Rest
assured dear readers, if there is some of my writing online, I will
link it back here.

On a final note, I got my first check from my ads, and I would like to
thank all of you for spending time reading this.

Much love.

Sent from my iPod

Trying something new

Hello friends,
I've decided to set up my iPod touch to handle some emailing and
blogging capabilities.

I'm hoping this will increase my productivity, but who knows.

Sent from my iPod

Well now.

Been a bit of time I suppose, since last I came upon this hallowed ground. I have completed year one of Sarah Lawrence College, and it has been a doozy of a year. I hope, and I know I've said this before, that I will be able to keep this blog going better in the summer months, and hopefully establish a bit more of a web presence. That being said, here's a quick summary of the year.

I wrote ten plays. That's right. Ten plays.

1. Hard Fish (yeah, I know I technically wrote this in the past, but I did six whole new drafts of it, and the play is pretty different than the original.)
2. This is Not About Love (a crooner musical with songs I don't own the rights to.)
3. Ninety Minutes to Eternity
4. The Door in the Fourth Wall
5. The Sanity of Byron Constantine
6. Axe Gambit
7. AFK
8. The Prodigal One
9. Faux Real
10. Woyzeck: The Musical

So there we go. The real turning point, in my opinion, was at play five. That's where my professors noticed real improvement and felt they were finally getting a piece of me as a writer in the plays, and that the plays weren't so distant and impersonal. I'm quite proud of a number of the plays. I think "Faux Real" is the favorite for me, though I also really like what came out of my Woyzeck adaptation. I've submitted two plays to the department for a full production, and plan on submitting some other plays to other theatres for development/production soon. SO, if any of my lovely readers would like to suggest places to send plays, let me know.

That said, I'm back here. On the blog. AND, I'm looking forward to a productive summer. For the mean time, I'm headed to the laundry room. It's time to move. Again.

Updates

I've been avoiding updating this blog because I'm not exactly sure what it's about any more. There are so many questions I have and so little answers to what it is that I'm doing here, and in the larger sense of the world. I'm pretty sure that's all I have for the moment, but, and be prepared for this drastic change, I feel this blog may need to shift from being primarily about writing to being about me as an artist, and exist as a place where I try and explore what it is that moves me to create.

Play out

Another play out into the wild! Anatomy of an Anarchist out to Balagan Theatre in Seattle!
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Play Submission

SO, two plays submitted so far. One last week to Washington Ensemble Theatre (the Abattoir) and one today to The Black Dahlia (The Sanity of Byron Constantin). Just posting here to keep a record. Will update y'all when I know more.

Early mornings

I should know better by now.

My body doesn't like the early morning. Here I am, waiting at a Starbucks, hoping the world stops spinning because I want to get off. I don't sleep well on the best of nights, and even worse when I have an early call. Despite my best intentions, wherein I went to bed early, avoided caffeine, I still wasn't able to hit that magic sleepland until the bleak hour of four AM. Part of me is just upset because I wasted four hours tossing and turning. Part is upset because I have to be up and around the suits rushing about.

So I'm off to work at the Westport playhouse today. I'll let you know how it goes.

On a sidenote, I was reading a book yesterday, and got to page 122, and the next page was missing. In fact, the next thirty three pages were missing. Bad publisher! Bad.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Hot damn

So, precious readers, I had a reading this evening. I will post the little poster I maee anon. It was a nice time. Oddly, the reading was fast. The script is sixty four pages, and the run time was about thirty five minutes. Overall, I think it was a success. Huzzah.

I attempted to make an audio recording of the reading, and provided it came through, I will try to figure out how to post it up here. Some good feedback from the viewers. And some laughter.

Another reading next week. Whew. Busy.

Feeling better. Much thanks for those who checked in me.

Write well. Smooches.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Fever Dreams

Rabbit rabbit, March first.

So, it would appear, despite my best intentions and boasting, I've managed to find something to upset the delicate balance that is my thermal control.

I think I have a fever.

I also have two plays to do this week. Not good. I mean, they're weird plays in any case, this feverish state might increase the oddity of my output. But when confronted with the idea of sleeping vs writing, sleeping seems more attractive to my beleaguered brain.

So, two plays for next week, "Gift Giver" and "Faux Real". Spencer and Baker respectively.

Oh, and Mr. Scuzzy has provided a delicious graphic thermometer I will post on here with all due haste so we can all track my march progress.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

The Hinterlands

I am a prolific writer. It's something I'm proud of. However, sometimes I find myself in what I think of as the Hinterlands.

It's a place where I try and find a new play to write. Where I explore ideas, mull theories and basically stress out over the concept of being a writer. I ask all those ridiculous questions, should I be doing this. Can I do this?

I'm there now. I have a few things boiling on the stove, but nothing feels done, and (to continue in the metaphor of food) some of it might not end up being edible.

On a side note, I've decided to send out ten plays in the month of March. Time to get my work out there. Hold me to it.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

As it happens

Life in this crazy little burg of Bronxville has hotted up to the point of busy busy. Writing here is going well, with all the sorts of success I could hope for, ie, a decent reception from my classmates and another reading coming up in the next few weeks.

As I type this I'm at a callback for a show, so it must needs be a short update. Much love.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Repetition

So, as some of you might know, I have been, for a time, one of the writers for a comedy group here on campus, the Lampoon.

I wrote a sketch for them based on some historical events, inspired heavily by a fantastic sketch from a friend of mine, nod to you Scuzzy, and now they want a bunch more in the same vein. They want the same essential joke to be repeated over and over again, and I have to pause for a moment and wonder if this will be funny or a waste of my time when they realize these are not ALL going to be funny. Perhaps one will be... Or none. In any case, how many times can things be funny?

I need to do laundry.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Zazoo: To Do

First off, let me say that I don't understand how the screen of my blackberry continues to develop scratches.

Second, I am writing some sketches this week for Lampoon. Time to be funny.

Third, I took the one act I wrote for Ed Baker's class and transformed it into a full length.

Fourth, I'm in a show this weekend, playing a cameo role, which, on the one hand I do very very well, but on the other, it takes a serious chunk of my time.

Fifth, I have a play, or something due next week for Spence's class, which means I need to decide whether to produce something new or refine something old. Votes?

Sixth, is lent. What do I give up? Food? Hot damn. Marshmallows? Beer? Meh, I'll come up with something.

Seventh, need to come up with the notion of the dance I have comitted myself to make. Been thinking of this one idea, but I don't have the resources to pull it off. I've been toying with the idea of writing a piece that is about the dance that I couldn't make. Describing what the audience would see without having the "things" in front of them. Ponderies....

Eigth, I'm passing my novel off to a person who was, in the past, an intern at a publishing house. Chaper eleven is still the devil.

Nine, webisodes? Do I have the time, inclination?

Ten, need to get crackalackin on the game I'm supposed to be writing.

Shazam. Ta da, there's the to do.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Time to update

It is a busy little universe I live in, and it can be difficult finding the time to update. But, that's a cross I chose to bear, and it is of my own volition.

That being said, on with the show.

Classes have become a routine by now, as we begin the third week. I've written two full plays and a one act. I'm no longer directing a show, nor assistant directing a show. I have two job offers on the table for the summer, both great, and wonderful, but I'm not sure I know how to choose. So there's the update, and I'll try to get back and postulate (without answering) more writerly questions in the future.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Just a Morning

So, dear readers, I find myself in possession of a new phone after the kind folks at at&t decided my phone was magically broken and not tossed carelessly on the floor. Here I am to update you on the actions of the week thus far.

First, school has resumed as of Tuesday. It is nice to start getting back in the swing of things. But, that does mean lots of reading and writing to get done. I have a draft of a play due by Sunday at noon. Huzzah! (That's for Spence's class). This play is one I started last semester, and I think has some good prospects. Spence has always seemed very eager to see where it goes, so hopefully it comes out a little better than some of my efforts in the past.

I also start a new playwriting class, with Edward Allen Baker, and I'm quite excited. Mainly because I hear he is amenable to working on screenplays, and I would like to get a few more screenplays on the playing field. Especially this one my friend Ben (of benanderic.com) asked me to write, though I wonder the intelligence of bringing a screenplay with characters I didn't write into a classroom/workshop setting. Can I adequately defend them? I mean, if the characters present a problem to the actualzation of the screenplay, will I be in a position to fix them, or will I need to be concerned about Ben's feelings on what is, ultimately, his IP? (IP stands for intellectual property)

In addition, I am going to choreograph a dance this semester. I have a meeting on Friday to discuss some of the particulars before the actual formal dance meeting on monday. I am excited sbout having the chance to work on something that is so different from where my prior experience lies, I think college is a place to experiment, and a place to be okay about failing. You know?

My final project, for the moment and not counting the game which I see as an ongoing project, is this web series. I see it as a television series, just online. I want to take advantage of the glut of underused actors, the cinematographical nature of the campus (it's beautiful) and present a show that is an update (of sorts) to 21 Jumpstreet, which was an eighties television series starring Johnny Depp about cops going undercover at a high school. We'll see how that one turns out, but it's in the gate.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Bit of an update

Bit of a discussion.

So, most of you have guessed my blog is primarily composed on my blackberry, and that's great. I love it. Problem is, my blackberry decided to stop working so well, which has made it difficult to blog. So, forgive me if updating is a bit sparse or I misspell words, I can't actually see what I'm typing.

That being said, I was just reading "Advanced Screenwriting" by Linda Seger (too early to recommend or condemn), and I found something to help explain my dissatisfaction with "Cloverfield". The lack of the payoff scene. So much is set up in that film, and so little is paid off. Ruminate on that.

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

"Cloverfield"

Okay kiddos, I saw this fine film yesterday, and needed some time to think about it before I wrote about it. Now, writing about screen writing is always somewhat problematic when dealing with just the finished product, as it is hard to tell how much of the screenplay survived the vetting process of editing and directing.

Let me say, from the top, that this is a fantastic way of re-imagining a genre film. "Cloverfield" is a monster movie, but instead of being from the point of view of the monster or the military or the "hero", this film is from the point of view of one of those little people running around and being squashed and eaten in other films. From that standpoint, I loved the film. However, I felt the story relied a little too much on being vague. I think there is a fine balance point where it becomes annoying, as an audience member, to know so little. For a while the mystery is fun, but the realization that you won't be privy to some of the important details of the movie made me irritateds, and were I to use the cries of Foul from the audience as a judge, I'd say I was not alone. When we, as an audience are invited along for a journey, there is this implied notion that we will be able to know the conclusion of the film.

The filming of the movie was done through a pseudo handheld version which, on the one hand was cool and different, but on the other was frustrating and distracting. I'm sure, in a sense, it was effective in limiting the budget, no soaring camera pans, no steadicam, but it also very limiting. I would be interested to find a copy of the script to see if this filming style was stipulated by the scribe or was a brainchild of the director.

Okay. So I might touch on this topic again in the future, I did appreciate the notion of the different perspective in a genre that has, like it or not, relatively established rules about what make up the movie. Perhaps I can do little piece about that....
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Ads... A quick note

So, as I like to remind you, dear reader, I am trying to procure a bit of scratch from this little blog, so please be kind a click on the links to the right of this.

On a funny note, I noticed that one of the links is generally to the MFA department at Northwestern, which is a school I applied to and really wanted to attend (it was my number two school on my list with gusts into number one). They did not accept me as a student, but apparently want to reach my readers. Hrm...
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

"Spring Awakening"

Taking full advantage of my proximity to New York, I went to the Great White Way and witnessed a spectacle called "Spring Awakening."

The music was fantastic. The story was not quite there, the acting somewhat shoddy, and so on.

The story was so jammed with adolescent cliches and gaping holes that I had difficulty following the action. Teens were dropping like flies and there were so many vibrant poignant stroylines brought up, briefly sung about, then never mentioned again. Somewhat disappointing. I would be interested in reading the original piece (the one written in the mid 1800's) and see if it holds the same holes as this Tony award winning production. (Though I'd need to take a look to see if it won best book...)

The most disturbing portion of the evening was watching the lead actor spray down the set, his fellow actors and the front few rows with ever increasing sprays of spittle. I thought it was a joke until I realized he never stopped...

Technical merits are mostly high. I thought the light design was effective and original and genuinely added to the play as a whole. On the flip side, I don't think the set did. It seemed simple and practical, a notion which was tossed out in the second act. The costumes were not spectacular, nor hideous.

I enjoyed the show overall, but would only rate it around the six point seven. Out of ten mind you. So almost passing, well, as I write that, I begin to wonder if it should have passed.... (Never you mind the quandary of grading art, I'm grading it) I give it a C-.

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Musings

So, I have traveled back to New York in order to continue my education in the wily ways of theatre.

However, I am currently trapped on an airplane across from the same two children who have been quite liberal in their high registered vocal applications throughout the flight, and seem to see no new reason to eliminate their emmanations.

To alleviate my frustration, I turn to you, dear blog-o-sphere. A joyous little arena of self indulgence, because you truly want to know what is on my mind. So, here is my big question of the day: I am interested in being a little more open about the projects I am ensconced in work on, but I do have that worry that by putting my ideas on the web for easy viewing, I am leaving myself open for rip offs. Is this legitimate? Or is this ultimately safe as everything is time stamped on a server beyond my control....? Hrm...?

In terms of projects, I am very interested in mercenaries right now, though the contemporary versions thereof prefer the term private security consultants. Perhaps I'll be in a better space to put out some more information about that particular gambit on the flip side..

Play well, and hit me up if you are around the Eastern seaboard.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Good morning

Good morning.

I am sitting in the Seattle airport, a place I have been many times before, and a place that holds countless memories for me. It is far too early for me to be up, considering where my circadian rhythms have me.

All that said (so you can gauge my mind set), this blog is ultimately supposed to be about writing, so let's talk writing.

Over this winter break of mine, I was expected to complete a draft of a play for Spence's class. It's a strange murder mystery playing out inside the protagonist's head. It is quite dark, and I think that darkness attracts Spence. However, I think that very same darkness keeps me from being very attracted to writing it. I prefer to write things that are happy and funny because I'd rather be laughing, all the same. In any case, I've written a bit more of the script, but still have a way to go.

I really want to finish this screenplay that I promised a friend I'd write. He came up with the characters and the world, but needs/wants me to write the screenplay. I really like the characters and the world he's created, and as I get closer to a finished product, you, dear reader(s) will know more deets (details). However, the story is just so ephemeral to me right now. It feels right and wrong in the same breath, and I'm not sure the tale I'm trying to tell fits within the Field three act structure. Nor do I think it would agree with McKee (So many books, I should write some reviews of the ones that have worked for me)... So, my problem is that I'm bringing my love for "meta" to the world of film. Not entirely unwelcome, but certainly awkward. Bah, enough complaining.

Go out and write.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Bedtime Thoughts

Tonight will be a short night. I getting up at four in order to fly to my cousin's wedding. Three hours of sleep, fantastic.

I watched "Die Harder" tonight, and I will start out by saying I love the ironic title. I felt that the early Die Hard movies (by that I mean one and two) were especially interesting because they redefined the action genre. All this has been studied by folks a whole lot more verbose than I, and you can read it in depth from them. For me, the change happened with the shift from muscle bound supermen to the, more or less, guy next door. All of a sudden here is a hero the audience (presumably at least the white males) could really relate to.

I won't sit here (lay here) and pretend that John McClain is an everyman sort, but his actions don't transcend traditional levels of reality to much. There are repercussions to his actions, he gets injured, he runs out of ammunition, he questions his involvement in the action. All wonderful, and all not especially evident in the genre films leading up to this.

With all that to chew on, I'm going to throw out a quick question to muse as you sip your coffee as I jet overhead, has the tide turned? Are the heroes in action films turning back into the supermen of the eighties? Take a look at the latest installment in the "Die Hard" franchise, the not quite as deliciously ironic "Live Free or Die Hard" (I might be incorrect with the title.... How embarrassing). McClain is back, but he seems more capable in terms of the fantastic. He is no longer the cop down the street, but rather he has been transformed into the iconic figure of John McClain with his trademarked phrases and patented grimaces.

And just as John McClain's emergence signaled the changing of the guard, so to might John Rambo's re-emergence..........

Goodnight. Play nicely.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Bedtime Thoughts

So usually, I really connect to movies/stories about writers and writing, and I find it is an easy way to motivate me into writing more.

For example, some movies I love (about writing) are "Shakespeare in Love", "Stranger than Fiction", et al.

For the record, a movie I do not like is "She-Devil". It involves a writer and writing, but I did not enjoy it (Interesting, though, to find myself watching movies two days in a row based on the premise of adultery. What is the prevalence of this discretion in our society?)

I also love the movie "Misery".

Because I am a writer, I like movies about writing. Is that a trend that continues throughout humanity? Do we prefer to listen to stories about our own little worlds? Or are we more attracted to the places that are alien to us. The writer leading us into the places we are afraid to pace... I'm not sure.

The oldest axiom about writing that I've been dished to is "Write what you know." But does the reverse apply? Read/watch what you know?

Think on it while I sleep.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

A new Job, a new type of Writing

So, I thought I would hold off on annoucing this new position that I've managed to acquire.

I've been "hired" as the Lead Writer for a small gaming company called Solid Stage, and we are working on a new MMO set in space. I'm writing the main world for the game, and coming up with the storyline. The game is called " Deep Transit".

I'm not exactly sure how much I can put in here about the work I'm doing, the writing and the world creation, so it will be a little light on that. BUT, there we go, there's something on the horizon. Perhaps sometime I'll even get paid for it.

Peace and love kiddos. I'll let you know more deets when I got em.

Bedtime thoughts

I am laying here in this warm bed, wondering what the hell is going on.

The power has been fluctuating between two positions. On and off, and its right annoying, especially as I am in the middle of a movie.

I am watching (attempting to watch) the movie "Waitress) which I am quite enjoying, but it raises two questions to me. One, how will this movie resolve to a happy ending (which a dear person has assured me it does) and two, is there a current trend of films/theatre/stories in which there is a moral justification for otherwise immoral actions?

The case here being adultery. Granted, as I write this, there has long been a Western tradition of glorifying violence, so perhaps moral justification for immoral acts is not a new concept. Fair enough. But, where are the moral lines drawn in story telling? Am I responsible, as an author for the actions I allow the protagonist to get away with? For the view that I take? Is it my view, or can I argue that the actions are those of the characters in the story?

All of which brings about the question of morality.... Is there a justification for any action? In the case of Waitress, does Keri Russells character have a justification for cheating on her incredibly atrocious husband? I mean, clearly, absolutely clearly a jerk in every stereotypical way... So much so that its a bit difficult to imagine how she could have married him in the first place. Say what you will about Stanley, but he has his moments, is great in bed and (especially when played by Marlon Brando) is one fine man. This Earl is a poorly disguised stereotype in an otherwise heavily dimensioned film.

There we go. The power is back on and let's see if we are able to finish the film.

*****SPOLIERS BELOW*****

The film has ended, and it did indeed have a happy enough ending. I mean, there wasn't a sense of closure for the relationship between the doctor and Jenna (keri russell). And isn't the doctor almost as "bad" as Earl for the manner he treated his wife? It's almost as if by not telling his wife about the affair, the damage is not done. I cry foul.

The characters of the two romantic leads were well flushed out, and I really enjoyed the banter between them. There was a genuine sense of comedy there, especially when the cliched response was given, the thrown out. A technique the male actor (also in Firefly (the captain therein) Scuz help me out))) seems to have perfected.

Okay, goodnight folks.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

"The Namesake"

Today I watched the Mira Nair movie, "The Namesake", which is quite good.

It's an interesting example of the film that explores the cultural melting point of contemporary society. The speed bumps of that new cultural assimilation. In this case, it is the story of an Indian family struggling with the Americanization of its children, while at the same time, it is the children dealing with being Indian Americans.

Oddly enough, I really did intend to speak about cultural notions, but I think the issue that comes up for me while watching this movie (yes, I am still watching the movie as I type this) is the notion of cruelty. As a writer, how can you be cruel to your characters. These entities of your own creation, and it is up to you to destroy them. I mean, let's be honest when we say there is little dramatic interest in a film (or play or story) where nothing bad happens to the protagonist. A question begins to arise, in my head at least, is it possible for a story to be dramatically interesting sans cruelty....

Perhaps, we shall see....
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Bedtime thoughts

Sitting in bed, laying really, I come to contemplating the movies I have seen recently, and the conjectures they have placed in my head. They are, in relative chronological order: "No Country For Old Men", "the Kingdom", "Shoot 'em Up" and last and least, "Jeepers Creepers".

Certainly, there is more to connect these movies other than their obvious predilection for violence. But I have to wonder if any of these films, nay movies, have serious value as either art or even story. Sure, they all tell some stories, and in the case of the Coens' quite well, but at the same time, all four of these movies left me very wanting.

I was enthralled by the world and the characters created by the Coens for their latest opus, and perhaps that is why their abject lack of logical progression in their otherwise hyper realistic movie bothered me so much. I hesitate to speak too much about the film because I would love my readers to see the film and come to their own conclusions, plus, I don't like to be one to spoil the movies. Be forewarned, it is impressively violent.

The start of this post, or at least the intent, was to discuss the concept of the story, or, to address the films I have seen lately and their general disregard for a quality tale. "The Kingdom" certainly seemed like it was destined for commercialism, and it did not disappoint. I felt I could have drawn out the beats of the movie, and laid it over the diagram Syd Field drew in "Screenplay". Too formulaic.

Okay, the bedtime notes are going to be a more regular occurrence as I try to make sure this site stays regularly updated, however, they are also to remain short.

So, goodnight. God bless.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

On being lost (part two)

(It's odd to think that my initial thought at the top of this little diatribe is on the subject heading of this particular post, amd if it conforms to the norm I established with the last post. OCD here I come)

As per the life of a student, I am at the relative start of my winter break, a glorious one month of relaxed responsibilities. This is the time traditionally reserved for the recharging of artistic batteries. I haven't found the plug yet. I feel stressed out and barely controlled. And this isn't helping solve my sense of loss.

Since the last post, I wrote some good starts, at least I think I did. My profs have expressed excitement at what I might (read Should) be bringing in as finished drafts upon my return. I spent the last few days fulfilling family obligations and trying hard to "relax", an anachyronism that is not lost on me. (And yes, I know anachronism is not the right word, but I can't think of what the appropriate word to express the inherent irony in trying hard to relax.)

I'd like to think I'm suffering from post scholastic stress disorder. I just can't relax. There's this constant pressure of needing to research and write and learn and get things done. How dis this affect my creative process? It makes the process non existent.

Bye for now kiddos!
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

The Act of Being Lost (Part One)

I think that every artist experiences a feeling of despair. A wondering of, what am I doing? Where am I going? Am I doing the right thing devoting my life to this elemental esotericism? I don't have the answers for you, hell, I don't have the answers for me.

We, and I'm speaking in a contemporary sense, have this notion of being the tough guy. Of throwing down our gloves and ripping the barbed wire apart with our bare hands because it reinforces the notion of how tough we really are. It's stupid, I know. It's part of, at least in my mind, something I like to call the "John Wayne Syndrome". We want to have the pilgrims look at us in awe as we walk into camp, or limp, with a broken leg, no horse and arrows sticking out of our back. WE love that feeling. We LOVE that image. That man in pain, but still pushing on as if nothing is bothering us. We seem to have that need to walk through the valley of the shadow of misery, and let you know about every evil we thought we toughed out. And if you don't notice the cuts, well, we cut them deeper so you do. And then fake trying to hide them.

All that to say that, we have difficulty imagining others going through difficulty, we want to be the ones in the most difficult arena. You climbed Everest? Well I did K2. Twice. Without oxygen or sherpas. It's all a gigantic contest that ends up with everyone losing. C'est la vie. I guess. It shouldn't be that way. HOWEVER, before I digress again, I think there is this notion that the greats didn't wrestle with demons. That Shakespeare sat down and just spewed out Lear as perfection. I mean, we know that didn't happen, at least not with Lear. But we like to think so. Or that Tennessee Williams wrote his great plays between the bars. I'm sure he didn't succumb to writer's block for his whole life, or wrestle with the demons of "Proper" and "Mediocrity" (who are vile little creatures, and very different from each other) for life, but I'm sure they hit upon him in the dark moments of the night.

A great quote by Brecht

In reference to "Baal", one of Bertolt Brecht's early works, he wrote in a much later edition:

"For the present edition of "Baal" the original version of the first and last scenes has been restored. Otherwise, I have left the play as it was, not having the strength to alter it. I admit (and advise you): this play is lacking in wisdom."
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

The Mist

This film, by a rather great director/adapter Frank Darabont, again presents a quandry, beyond that of why did I see two movies in one day... This film was based on a novella by Stephen King, and was, without doubt, my favorite short story by Mr. King.
The movie was faithful to the original in a few respects, though it did remove the moral ambiguity of the hero and expressing additional exposition to insure a contemporary audience would understand what was happening. As a film review, I think the movie was a romp with middling special effects. As a writer, there were two areas of interest. First is the manner in which the exposition/background of the story is presented. It was done so poorly. Would it be possible for the story to happen without that? Would people understand what was happening? Would they fly along with the story?
Second. The end. I won't post the end yet, but I will talk about that at a later date.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

August Rush

This movie presents something of an enigma to me. It's quite a bit of trash in many respects, and the lead boy actor is awful. The movie is heavy handed and about as subtle as a sledgehammer, but for some reason, it had a profound effect on me. I found myself nearly in tears over the hugely contrived story. Story? It's a fairy tale, with a simple innocent main character who has a strong action which isn't deviated from. The boy, August, is never appears to doubt the veracity of his parents existence or their desire for him. We, as the audience, are privvy to that fact, watching as the parents feel the pangs of separation, and an almost equal desire to find the child. The two antagonists are also equally transparent in both their evil intents and desires. The music in this particular tale was weilded as magic, and I have to admit that the music was indeed magical.
Perhaps the reason there was such a profound effect on me was the music. It was pervasive and powerful, and, I believe, when you give in to it, it can sweep you away.
As this is primarily about writing, here's a moment to talk about that. I found the story should have started later than it did. I was interested in the mother and the son, but the father's journey as a rock star just didn't hold my attention as well. The dialogue was weak at its best, and usually felt clunky and contrived. Worth seeing for the music, but ultimately, you will be disappointed by that silly boy.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

This is the illegal postcard for the reading upcoming of my play "Anatomy of an Anarchist". Illegal because the oncampus theatre company seems to have strange ideas about posters. I'd be really happy if a playwright took the iniative to do some publicity. Especially free publicity for the theatre company. Whatevs. Damage control on route, things are fine. Just annoying really.

Any case, those who are in this area, feel free to head over to Downstage Theater to view a staged reading of "Anatomy of an Anarchist" on November 29 at 7:30.

One thing about graduate school is that it rarely leaves time for anything else. That excuse set aside for the moment, I am a heinous individual for leaving this alone for so long.
Since the last post, here is the rundown of what has happened:
I saw a show in NY that is a little comedy show called "Too Much Light Makes the Baby Go Blind" by a group called the neo-futurists. It is a fun fast paced show where thirty two minute plays are performed in an hour. Very goofily. I highly recommend it.
I took part in the 24 hour play festival here at SLC, wherein I was a director. Many people came up to me and said that my play was the best one of the night, so go me. It was a good time, and reminded me that directing is fun.
I've written four plays since I've been here.
The show that I am acting in, "The Authentick Relations of Dutch..." (it's a very long title) is going up this week, and it has been an enlightening experience, showing me new ways to look at creating theatre.

It has been an adjustment being back at school. Being around people who have a vastly different maturity level (read undergrads) has been harrowing at times. I miss, in some senses, the days of being a professional, but I was a professional in something I didn't want to do.

Okay, so, that's that, and I will try to keep things here a little more up to date.
Much love,
Me.

This weekend, I finally made it to the Great White Way. I saw a Broadway production of the show, "Chorus Line".

To begin, it was an interesting experience. To end, the show is beyond dated at this point. There was no attempt to update the show in any sense, and I think that resulted in a detrimental theatre going experience on my part.

The original show came out in 1976, and blew everyone away. It received numerous awards, and was/is a fantastic show. In it's time. Now, it's been done. The dancing that our culture has been exposed to since 1976 is far and above beyond the performances at this show. The pseudo disco fosse mix has gone from being hip and new to being trite and old. It was difficult watching the production claim that the dancers were amazing or the routines exceptionally difficult when there really wasn't that new flair to it.

Of course, perhaps this is an intrinsic problem of heading into a play with some notion of expectation. I expected fabulous dancing. I didn't get it. I was irritated. I expected witty dialog, but I was not rewarded. Is it my fault for wanting too much out of the show? I'm not sure.

The quick and dirty: The show was dated, through and through. If you are looking to see a great Broadway show, this isn't it. If you are looking for a nostalgic trip back to the Broadway of yesteryear, this might be the ticket. It certainly seemed to recreate the feeling of watching a show in 1976. But we've grown so much as a culture, is there a point to going back to exactly that? Can't we see an updated chorus line? The trials and tribulations faced by contemporary dancers? I would love to see that... of course, maybe that's just an opening for some other musical to be composed. "Chorus Line 2: This time, it's personal"

Alright, so I've been at Sarah Lawrence College for a week now. Technically a week and a half, and it is certainly an experience. It's pretty insane. In a good way. I have yet to have a playwriting class, but one is coming up this afternoon, and I'm quite excited for it. With only two people in the class, it's a little intimidating, I'm unsure how the workshop aspect of the class will function. I was hoping for small class sizes, but this is a little ridiculous.

One of things I love about the college atmosphere is the exposure to different people in different fields. I didn't expect to be so drawn to these other fields though. Perhaps that's why I do theatre, because I want to do everything. I worry that the MFA I acquire here will lead to few other jobs, especially as I watch the human geneticists around me all lining up careers post college. I wonder, should I change? Is the study of theatre a pointless exercise? Granted, the most appropriate response is Isn't it a bit late for that? Yes. Yes it is. However, I could just get more schooling after this schooling, and get the education in something that is a bit more career friendly.

In any case, school is an interesting place to be, and I've gotten some writing done already. Just a one act called, "Love: A Masturbatory Act in Four Digressions" but it felt good to get some words on the page. I'll start work on the bigger projects as soon as I've gotten my feet wet in the playwriting classes.

A gem

A small sentence in this book I'm reading, "American Avant-Garde Theatre: a History" by Arnold Aronson has struck a chord with me today.

"If the purpose of art is to create experiences one cannot have in everyday life... then a theatre that replicates the everyday world is meaningless and pointless."

Right on the nose. However, that being said, one then must argue what constitutes everyday world. We do not share identical existences in this world, and therefore, the notions we might consider normal are not necessarily as commonplace as we, in our bias, might assume.

But perhaps we should take this at a broader stroke. Perhaps Dr. Aronson is trying to imply the worthlessness of theatre that exists alongside reality. Is he trying to refer to plays in the realistic or naturalistic sense (Chekhov or Ibsen) or does he also refer to plays that extend a bit further from reality, but remain within the bounds of our capabilities of recognizing the world presented (Tennesee Williams or August Strindberg)? As this is a book about avant garde theatre, it makes sense to assume Dr. Aronson has some predilection for the avant-garde above other forms of theatre, but does this allow us to assume he thinks the vast quantity of theatre is, "meaningless and pointless"?

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Another thought on the point of Art

And by art, I mean theatren though I imagine the quote by Lionel Trilling refers to all art.
"A primary function of art and thought is to liberate the individual from the tyranny of his culture in the environmental sense and to permit him to stand beyond it in an autonomy of perception and judgment."

A tall order. I hesistate to say I agree or disagree with his statement. I think the best way to phrase my thoughts is to say that I respect the ideal, but question its practicality.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

A thought

I'm sitting here in the helpful hum of a flourescent light reading "American Theatre". Nicole Estvanik, in a critic's notebook, says, "Isn't that what we want from our playwrights- for them to frame a Pointillist haze of ideas, events, and personalities, and help us see a picture emerge?"

Is that what "we" want from playwrights?
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

The Reading of "Anatomy of an Anarchist"

Last night (or Sunday August 26 if I'm slow in posting), a play I wrote, "Anatomy of an Anarchist" was produced as a staged reading by the company Intravenous Theatre. In New York City. In Manhattan.

It was brutally hot and humid and the audience was made up of people I didn't know. It was hard to be there with strangers, and I definitely felt bashful going up for the talk back. However, that seems to be the nature of the beast and it was good to place myself in uncomfortable situations.

I was pleased, for the most part, with the results. The actors chosen did a great job, and helped illuminate some of the problems I had been unable to see just by reading. It reaffirmed, to me at least, the need to hear a work out loud to understand what it is you, or in this case, me, have written.

There were some lines that surprised me, I hadn't remembered writing them. I think that's a sign of good acting. Or my poor memory. I haven't read the play in some time, so it's difficult to know if any lines were changed. Normally my dialogue is rife with profanity, and I don't use damn very often. More often it's fuck. So... I wonder.

It was hard to listen to some of the talk back responses, some people were complaining about the effects that I intended to happen. I wanted the ending to feel almost pointless, like there wasn't a real change in the world from the beginning of the play to the end of the play. But this guy said that's what he felt, but seemed to imply it was a negative.

I was really happy with the enthusiastic response that the meta-theatrical nature of the play received. I want the play to be playful, especially when dealing with such a serious topic, and one of the comments I received was that the playfulness balanced out the preachy nature of the material and made it more palatable.

Well, I think that's all for the present. As I begin the rewriting process, there will be more to write here. A second entry on this play, "Anatomy of an Anarchist" will be forthcoming.

Click on the ads!
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

The Green Show, part 2

I spoke earlier about the Green Show of the Oregon Shakespeare festival, but for those of you disinclined to scroll down to the lower portions of this blog, I will present a quick recap.

The Green Show is a short dance piece intended to accompany the show being performed in the Elizabethan Theatre. In this case, "The Tempest."

While watching this, a number of notions struck me. First, the physical capabilities of some humans is awesome, in the true sense of the word. Second, my understanding of the power of dance as performance is really quite pathetic, and something I hope to remedy in my tenure in New York. Third, when the dancers include elements of acting, ie displaying emotion and interacting with the audience, the power of the dance is increased inordinately.

The dancers did a bang up job, for the most part, but there was one notion which troubled me a tad. I imagine I will come off sounding bad no matter how I say this, but there was one female dancer who was significantly larger than the rest of the women. She was still a marvelous dancer and took part in one of the more impressive pieces. However, she just made the troupe look awkward. Miscast. As I brusquely commented to my comrade, it had the appearance of a dance teacher casting herself into a student recital. Now, back in the college days when I fancied myself an actor, I was not cast in a play because of my size. I was told by the director that my breadth and musculature would have unbalanced the aesthic of the play. It makes me think about the notions of casting based on the physical appearance of the people in question. Is it fair? In a sense it seems like it is a requisite component of casting a performance. As a director (or a choreographer) you are responsible for the visuals presented on the stage, and certainly some playwrights have clear particulars on what the characters should resemble.

So, fairness? Should casting contain the impetus be on physical? However, since this is supposed to be a blog about writing, it's time to turn the question to think about writing. Where are the guidelines to describing the characters we write? Should we be concerned about their physical appearance? I mean, does it matter when the play is cast?

Maybe I'm not making too much sense... But it is a question that has been bouncing around my head for a spell.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T