How do you spell whore? Is it hore or whore? How about prostitute?
I'm blogging at rakemag.com about the first week of rehearsal for my new play "Everywhere Signs Fall," April 18-May 11. At the Loading Dock Theatre in St. Paul. produced by gremlin.
It's in the "Just passing through" section.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Saturday, March 15, 2008
A Philosophical Meditation on Process v. People
I keep thinking about how systems can or should change in order to create better results. This is why my head hurts a little. Some people believe in people – you find the right people, fuck the purpose, and you can move mountains. Other people think in terms of systems, as in, we need to create systems in which people’s best instincts thrive. In some ways, if you wanted, a person could argue that “systems” people have more sympathy and empathy with people than “people” people. Systems people – some of us anyway – recognize that the human creature is varied. As Hamlet said, In form, reason, and faculty. . . how like a god (bad paraphrase) but also petty and horrible. Creating systems for people to maximum their divine instincts and minimize their darker instincts is a people-focused endeavor. “People” people are the first ones to be disappointed by failure and move on to other, better people fast. Of course, other “systems” people simply want to create a system in which people can’t fuck it up but I think those people have psychological issues they need to work through so I’m discounting them.
I’m talking about two equally valid perspectives – rather than whether these perspectives are more or less motivated by a adherents’ childhood experience. Assuming you don’t cross in to crazy, I don’t think it matters in many circumstances what made you who are. It only matters who you are. And what you do therefore.
Other people might say – in that incredible cop-out way that seems to be the refuge of everyone who doesn’t believe in the power of thought – that “of course the truth lies somewhere in the middle” Which means so much of everything that it means nothing. Yes, of course the truth lies somewhere in the middle if for no other reason than that the infamous “middle” occupies so much real estate that simple odds suggest that the truth has at least vacationed there at some point or another.
I would argue that both “people” people and “systems” people are arguing over the middle. The sane ones at least. Yes, you need to have both the right system and the right people. All sane people know that. But “people” people think that, with the right people, you will naturally, organically, find the system that works best. And “systems” people believe that the correct system creates an environment where people can be at their best.
If the truth lies somewhere in the middle of that, then it doesn’t really matter since I’m talking about the way people involuntarily think rather than what specifically they do.
I must be a “systems” person, yet I’ve traveled and seen enough of the world to know that its really people that do matter. “Systems” are too seductive though. They can be explained. They can be applied broadly. They can effect more people. They are utopian. Dissecting and reinventing systems is noisy and attention-grabbing and, for some us, fun. But the reality of the world as I’ve experienced it is that people effect other people, on a much smaller scale, in a way that is hard to describe and quantify. Yet it’s the only real effect that actually exists.
Maybe. . . I live for doubt and questions. . . I think its because I’m a “systems” person.
I am moved to consider this stuff – and enlightened about why my head hurts – because I had a conversation with a charming young guy who runs a theater company in town. I kept talking about mission statements and vision – in large part to help him understand what the foundations who might fund his work want – and he not only resisted the talk but clearly didn’t understand what I was talking about. He understood. He’s a very smart guy. He didn’t understand WHY I was talking about it. Why I would want to talk about it.
When I told my lovely wife about this later, she said, “He’s the entrepreneurial type. He believes in “Trust me. Trust the team I put together. What else is there?”
Because I do trust him, it made me see more clearly an entirely alternative way of thinking.
Then last night, Leah and I were flipping television stations just looking for something to eat up our mind and time after a long and hard week. The only actual narrative show on Friday night was something called “Numbers” starring that guy who used to be in “Northern Exposure” and a bunch of other vaguely familiar actors including an incredible actor from “The Wire.” With that kind of cast, and a crime drama formula that can be somewhat successful in certain circumstances, you really can’t blame anyone for the total and complete execrableness of the show but the writers.
How could this show be this bad? Seriously. These writers should have stayed on strike, gone in to a different career, anything, something. Even with our entirely lowered standards at that moment, neither of us could stand to watch the entire thing. Even though there was some kind of desperate and supposed suspense and mystery to the whole proceeding, neither of us where motivated by even the slightest curiosity to see how it resolved.
And I know very many great writers in this country. Lots of them. People who can do exceptional plots or amazing dialogue or whatever. How can this show – and so many other television shows – be so unbelievably bad?
Of course I start to think of the system. I know the people are good. Or I assume the people are good. Follow me: I know great writers. I assume that great writers are easy to hire because I know they want to be hired. Therefore there must be some other explanation for the horribleness of most television writing besides a lack of ability to write well.
Maybe the concept of a “writing room” is dangerous? Maybe the structure of television writing – where someone has a concept and others try to write characters for the concept someone else created – is the problem. Maybe the peculiarities of the Hollywood system are to blame - where I have heard that 12 different executives who have no writing skill but think they know what to write give notes – is the problem?
I expect all of these theories have some truth to them. And so I think, what would a workable system look like and, I think, if someone could articulate it, wouldn’t other people want to adopt it?
Here’s where reality hits me in the face and my headhurtsalittle. 1. I assume the goal of television shows is to write good television. Or at least, I assume that writing good television doesn’t adversely effect some additional, more salient purpose, like filling time between commercials. You can fill time between commercials with better television, can’t you? All the most successful television shows in television history have done it with panache. . . Of course, my assumptions – the assumptions you need to make if you’re a “systems” person – are nonsense. For all I know – and I know nothing about Hollywood regardless of how many celebrity stories exist on the internet – every person who works there has sixty different goals and the most salient one at any given moment may simply be to have a business card that will get you fucked later that evening. Who the hell knows? Just because one goal sounds better, more noble, more desirable, than another goal doesn’t give it any more credence in the universe.
And 2. – and here is where things get even more confusing. . . I mean, I’ve been following my own train of thought, at least, up to this point but then. . . There is a reason why a system exists the way that it exists and for a systems person that reason is systemic. So, the writing of television occurs in a way that doesn’t create good television, therefore we need to change the system that supports the typical writing for television. Yet, the system for writing for television exists within a larger system of creating television shows. That system is what creates the smaller system. So if you want to improve the way television is written you have to change the way television is created. If you want to change the way television is created, you have to change the society in which television-making is important. This can go on forever and explains why education reform efforts can get so confusing. If you want to change the way kids learn about math, you have to change the way they think about math. If you want to change the way they think about math, you have to change the way they think. If you want to change the way they think, you have to change the way they live. That's why poverty is an education issue, and why improving education feels at times so much more undoable than perhaps it should.
Either everything truly is connected and some really brilliant philosopher who we should then call God can figure out where to start in order to have the appropriate domino effect on all systems.
Or, the young artistic director who I talked to a few nights ago is correct. And we should just find the right people to work with and hope for the best.
I think he’s right.
Yet “systemic” thinking is too seductive to resist. And the weird thing is that no amount of experience can entirely change the way your brain is wired to think. . .
Unless. . . I knew we’d find our way back to therapy. Wait a second – changing the way we think? Isn’t that just “systems” thinking again. . . It goes on forever. My head hurts.
Or this is entirely wrong-headed. . . Also, why my head hurts. I wish I had a laboratory to test my theories so I could rule them out or in one way or another rather than simply contemplate them. But the things I want to test are so broadly-defined that I wouldn’t know what subject area at a university, for example, my laboratory would be housed in. . . Ah, delusions. . .
One more thought now that I'm a-thinkin': My wife is a systems person who isn’t interested in theory. She creates environments in which people can work at their best simply by being very active when she is the person at the top of the food chain. Yet, she slavishly adheres to concepts like vision and mission in the way in which she works. She’s a systems person with a “people” persons approach. I think its what makes her so good at what she does.
How does her mind or my mind or anyone's mind wind up working in this way? I’ve read the basic psychology books, but they don’t address the specifics of day to day accomplishment. . . At least not what I read. Perspective has always fascinated me. . . I wrote a play entirely about it. I think its brilliant. No one else seemed to care about the main idea. They enjoyed the play, but the kernal for writing it appears to escape most people. . . The thing about day-to-day perspective and how that effects the larger world in ways we can't even imagine. . . The truth of that idea. . . No one cared. . . o well. . . They enjoyed the play anyway. That's something.
Enough. Good morning.
I’m talking about two equally valid perspectives – rather than whether these perspectives are more or less motivated by a adherents’ childhood experience. Assuming you don’t cross in to crazy, I don’t think it matters in many circumstances what made you who are. It only matters who you are. And what you do therefore.
Other people might say – in that incredible cop-out way that seems to be the refuge of everyone who doesn’t believe in the power of thought – that “of course the truth lies somewhere in the middle” Which means so much of everything that it means nothing. Yes, of course the truth lies somewhere in the middle if for no other reason than that the infamous “middle” occupies so much real estate that simple odds suggest that the truth has at least vacationed there at some point or another.
I would argue that both “people” people and “systems” people are arguing over the middle. The sane ones at least. Yes, you need to have both the right system and the right people. All sane people know that. But “people” people think that, with the right people, you will naturally, organically, find the system that works best. And “systems” people believe that the correct system creates an environment where people can be at their best.
If the truth lies somewhere in the middle of that, then it doesn’t really matter since I’m talking about the way people involuntarily think rather than what specifically they do.
I must be a “systems” person, yet I’ve traveled and seen enough of the world to know that its really people that do matter. “Systems” are too seductive though. They can be explained. They can be applied broadly. They can effect more people. They are utopian. Dissecting and reinventing systems is noisy and attention-grabbing and, for some us, fun. But the reality of the world as I’ve experienced it is that people effect other people, on a much smaller scale, in a way that is hard to describe and quantify. Yet it’s the only real effect that actually exists.
Maybe. . . I live for doubt and questions. . . I think its because I’m a “systems” person.
I am moved to consider this stuff – and enlightened about why my head hurts – because I had a conversation with a charming young guy who runs a theater company in town. I kept talking about mission statements and vision – in large part to help him understand what the foundations who might fund his work want – and he not only resisted the talk but clearly didn’t understand what I was talking about. He understood. He’s a very smart guy. He didn’t understand WHY I was talking about it. Why I would want to talk about it.
When I told my lovely wife about this later, she said, “He’s the entrepreneurial type. He believes in “Trust me. Trust the team I put together. What else is there?”
Because I do trust him, it made me see more clearly an entirely alternative way of thinking.
Then last night, Leah and I were flipping television stations just looking for something to eat up our mind and time after a long and hard week. The only actual narrative show on Friday night was something called “Numbers” starring that guy who used to be in “Northern Exposure” and a bunch of other vaguely familiar actors including an incredible actor from “The Wire.” With that kind of cast, and a crime drama formula that can be somewhat successful in certain circumstances, you really can’t blame anyone for the total and complete execrableness of the show but the writers.
How could this show be this bad? Seriously. These writers should have stayed on strike, gone in to a different career, anything, something. Even with our entirely lowered standards at that moment, neither of us could stand to watch the entire thing. Even though there was some kind of desperate and supposed suspense and mystery to the whole proceeding, neither of us where motivated by even the slightest curiosity to see how it resolved.
And I know very many great writers in this country. Lots of them. People who can do exceptional plots or amazing dialogue or whatever. How can this show – and so many other television shows – be so unbelievably bad?
Of course I start to think of the system. I know the people are good. Or I assume the people are good. Follow me: I know great writers. I assume that great writers are easy to hire because I know they want to be hired. Therefore there must be some other explanation for the horribleness of most television writing besides a lack of ability to write well.
Maybe the concept of a “writing room” is dangerous? Maybe the structure of television writing – where someone has a concept and others try to write characters for the concept someone else created – is the problem. Maybe the peculiarities of the Hollywood system are to blame - where I have heard that 12 different executives who have no writing skill but think they know what to write give notes – is the problem?
I expect all of these theories have some truth to them. And so I think, what would a workable system look like and, I think, if someone could articulate it, wouldn’t other people want to adopt it?
Here’s where reality hits me in the face and my headhurtsalittle. 1. I assume the goal of television shows is to write good television. Or at least, I assume that writing good television doesn’t adversely effect some additional, more salient purpose, like filling time between commercials. You can fill time between commercials with better television, can’t you? All the most successful television shows in television history have done it with panache. . . Of course, my assumptions – the assumptions you need to make if you’re a “systems” person – are nonsense. For all I know – and I know nothing about Hollywood regardless of how many celebrity stories exist on the internet – every person who works there has sixty different goals and the most salient one at any given moment may simply be to have a business card that will get you fucked later that evening. Who the hell knows? Just because one goal sounds better, more noble, more desirable, than another goal doesn’t give it any more credence in the universe.
And 2. – and here is where things get even more confusing. . . I mean, I’ve been following my own train of thought, at least, up to this point but then. . . There is a reason why a system exists the way that it exists and for a systems person that reason is systemic. So, the writing of television occurs in a way that doesn’t create good television, therefore we need to change the system that supports the typical writing for television. Yet, the system for writing for television exists within a larger system of creating television shows. That system is what creates the smaller system. So if you want to improve the way television is written you have to change the way television is created. If you want to change the way television is created, you have to change the society in which television-making is important. This can go on forever and explains why education reform efforts can get so confusing. If you want to change the way kids learn about math, you have to change the way they think about math. If you want to change the way they think about math, you have to change the way they think. If you want to change the way they think, you have to change the way they live. That's why poverty is an education issue, and why improving education feels at times so much more undoable than perhaps it should.
Either everything truly is connected and some really brilliant philosopher who we should then call God can figure out where to start in order to have the appropriate domino effect on all systems.
Or, the young artistic director who I talked to a few nights ago is correct. And we should just find the right people to work with and hope for the best.
I think he’s right.
Yet “systemic” thinking is too seductive to resist. And the weird thing is that no amount of experience can entirely change the way your brain is wired to think. . .
Unless. . . I knew we’d find our way back to therapy. Wait a second – changing the way we think? Isn’t that just “systems” thinking again. . . It goes on forever. My head hurts.
Or this is entirely wrong-headed. . . Also, why my head hurts. I wish I had a laboratory to test my theories so I could rule them out or in one way or another rather than simply contemplate them. But the things I want to test are so broadly-defined that I wouldn’t know what subject area at a university, for example, my laboratory would be housed in. . . Ah, delusions. . .
One more thought now that I'm a-thinkin': My wife is a systems person who isn’t interested in theory. She creates environments in which people can work at their best simply by being very active when she is the person at the top of the food chain. Yet, she slavishly adheres to concepts like vision and mission in the way in which she works. She’s a systems person with a “people” persons approach. I think its what makes her so good at what she does.
How does her mind or my mind or anyone's mind wind up working in this way? I’ve read the basic psychology books, but they don’t address the specifics of day to day accomplishment. . . At least not what I read. Perspective has always fascinated me. . . I wrote a play entirely about it. I think its brilliant. No one else seemed to care about the main idea. They enjoyed the play, but the kernal for writing it appears to escape most people. . . The thing about day-to-day perspective and how that effects the larger world in ways we can't even imagine. . . The truth of that idea. . . No one cared. . . o well. . . They enjoyed the play anyway. That's something.
Enough. Good morning.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
More Stupid Press Commentary
Does anyone actually know anyone who voted for or will vote for either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama because of "liberal guilt"? "Liberal guilt" in this instance is, I guess, the idea that someone went in to a voting a booth or caucus and somehow got a rush out of making an entirely symbolic vote that somehow stands in for reparations for years of oppression?
Do you know anyone who you even think will this? Like, "I don't really think he or she is qualified, AND I may not even like him or her on an emotional level, BUT I am going to vote for [fill in the blank] because I" well, it's hard for me to even imagine the logic "because I feel that I must. Or I should. Or I get an adrenaline rush from it. Or - " O, please, come on. . . What the Fuck?
Wait - I'll try to be fair. Maybe its subconscious. Maybe I subconsciously like Barack Obama because I feel as though I have to atone for the sins of America. . . Of course, while I recognize that America has committed sins, and I don't feel good about them, I have never even come close to an inclining of a thought of doing something blatantly symbolic and wasteful in order to atone for those sins. What the fuck?
Hey, whatever, maybe it is subconscious. . . But even if it is - unless the press starts showing me their ph'd in psychologym then they should shut up about it too.
Not that it pains me that much -- unless you believe that any stupidity makes us all stupider even when we ignore it -- it's just I'm procrastinating from other work.
I'm really enjoying the steam blowing-offness of this blog. Cool.
My apologies to the strange but affectionate folk who actually read this. I'm sort of still pretending that you only exist in the abstract.
Do you know anyone who you even think will this? Like, "I don't really think he or she is qualified, AND I may not even like him or her on an emotional level, BUT I am going to vote for [fill in the blank] because I" well, it's hard for me to even imagine the logic "because I feel that I must. Or I should. Or I get an adrenaline rush from it. Or - " O, please, come on. . . What the Fuck?
Wait - I'll try to be fair. Maybe its subconscious. Maybe I subconsciously like Barack Obama because I feel as though I have to atone for the sins of America. . . Of course, while I recognize that America has committed sins, and I don't feel good about them, I have never even come close to an inclining of a thought of doing something blatantly symbolic and wasteful in order to atone for those sins. What the fuck?
Hey, whatever, maybe it is subconscious. . . But even if it is - unless the press starts showing me their ph'd in psychologym then they should shut up about it too.
Not that it pains me that much -- unless you believe that any stupidity makes us all stupider even when we ignore it -- it's just I'm procrastinating from other work.
I'm really enjoying the steam blowing-offness of this blog. Cool.
My apologies to the strange but affectionate folk who actually read this. I'm sort of still pretending that you only exist in the abstract.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Random Morning Thoughts
Up early this morning, looking at budget numbers. Argh! Thought I'd write some things:
1. Another Reason Why the Political Press is Dumb, Dumb, Dumb: So, Hillary has attacked Obama, and the press is wondering whether Obama can survive the attacks. At some point, they start to take their metaphors literally. So, now the attack involves whether or not Obama has a "glass jaw" and "can survive the attacks." They write things like "whether he can stand up to these attacks remains to be seen."
The thing is -- he hasn't literally been attacked. No one is shooting arrows at him or punching him in the face with anything. She's throwing words at him, and he's going to "stand up to them" simply by, well, continuing to stand up. Great! What an easy bar for him to jump over. A few days from the now, the press will be amazed that he has "withstood her attacks." What did they expect him to do? Start crying? Short of him throwing up his hands and saying, "That's it. I can't take it. She's a meany. I don't want to play." which even the biggest panzy ass wimp wouldn't do, he's going to look like he survived "her attacks."
Now whether her attacks "land" with voters, that's something he can't control. He can respond as best he can, and then time moves forward.
Also - I'm enamored of the Obama campaigns sense of timing. Do they do this on purpose? Wait a few days for the conventional wisdom to harden in to "Hillary's campaign is in attack mode" before hitting back hard. If you hit back immediately, it looks like tit-for-tat and everyone looks bad, but if you give it a couple days -- if you let everyone talk about HIllary's attacks -- then when you hit back you look like you have no choice and you're blameless.
Also -- Does the Hillary campaign think the media is biased because the garbage they throw against the wall isn't working like they expect it to?
2. Every time I start to think I'm too hard on American theater - Hey, the Guthrie does support local professional actors. Real hard they do. they've made it possible for an incredible talent pool to remain in the Twin Cities. Everyone is trying to do good work, aren't they? Why do I get so critical and worked up? I'm young and immature. What do I know. I have a lot to learn from the experienced hands in the business.
Then I go see a show -- any show, big show, little show, medium-sized show -- and I simply don't think its very good. And not very good in an "I don't like theater" way. Very good in a -- well, that was a lame, pandering, cowardly, stilted, and/or purposefully unimaginative choices.
If the generation above me constantly whines about how theater is dying AND I go see their shows and think, "well, this particular way of doing theater can't die fast enough," is it really youthful and immature of me to criticize their work in the extreme? Do I have to defer to my elders when they both complain about the work they do and do insufficient work at the same time?
3. What are they teaching in actor training program? Very crafty. No truth. Saw a play last night of recent Guthrie BFA grads. Great play that I'd seen twice before, both in exceptional productions. Thought the play couldn't be screwed up.
These kids were fine. But boy was there a lot of blocking - and acting -- and speaking -- and character-playing. And accents. Walk three steps, make sure all three sides of the theater can see someone at all times, speak your lines with appropriate intention and meaning, and walk three steps, rinse and repeat. . . Apparently, according to actor training programs, you can't really move and speak at once. You can't really touch another actor unless its an incredbly meaningful moment. O, and when a character says that he or she feels something, you have to show us that he or she really feels it.
With all your technique and craft classes and textual analysis classes, could you just add a "Let's go observe real life" class. Take everyone to bars and restaurants all around the city and make them come back to the classroom and recreate that sense of spontenous freedom and unexpected moment-to-moment detail. . . OK, I'll work on that curriculum but something like that.
1. Another Reason Why the Political Press is Dumb, Dumb, Dumb: So, Hillary has attacked Obama, and the press is wondering whether Obama can survive the attacks. At some point, they start to take their metaphors literally. So, now the attack involves whether or not Obama has a "glass jaw" and "can survive the attacks." They write things like "whether he can stand up to these attacks remains to be seen."
The thing is -- he hasn't literally been attacked. No one is shooting arrows at him or punching him in the face with anything. She's throwing words at him, and he's going to "stand up to them" simply by, well, continuing to stand up. Great! What an easy bar for him to jump over. A few days from the now, the press will be amazed that he has "withstood her attacks." What did they expect him to do? Start crying? Short of him throwing up his hands and saying, "That's it. I can't take it. She's a meany. I don't want to play." which even the biggest panzy ass wimp wouldn't do, he's going to look like he survived "her attacks."
Now whether her attacks "land" with voters, that's something he can't control. He can respond as best he can, and then time moves forward.
Also - I'm enamored of the Obama campaigns sense of timing. Do they do this on purpose? Wait a few days for the conventional wisdom to harden in to "Hillary's campaign is in attack mode" before hitting back hard. If you hit back immediately, it looks like tit-for-tat and everyone looks bad, but if you give it a couple days -- if you let everyone talk about HIllary's attacks -- then when you hit back you look like you have no choice and you're blameless.
Also -- Does the Hillary campaign think the media is biased because the garbage they throw against the wall isn't working like they expect it to?
2. Every time I start to think I'm too hard on American theater - Hey, the Guthrie does support local professional actors. Real hard they do. they've made it possible for an incredible talent pool to remain in the Twin Cities. Everyone is trying to do good work, aren't they? Why do I get so critical and worked up? I'm young and immature. What do I know. I have a lot to learn from the experienced hands in the business.
Then I go see a show -- any show, big show, little show, medium-sized show -- and I simply don't think its very good. And not very good in an "I don't like theater" way. Very good in a -- well, that was a lame, pandering, cowardly, stilted, and/or purposefully unimaginative choices.
If the generation above me constantly whines about how theater is dying AND I go see their shows and think, "well, this particular way of doing theater can't die fast enough," is it really youthful and immature of me to criticize their work in the extreme? Do I have to defer to my elders when they both complain about the work they do and do insufficient work at the same time?
3. What are they teaching in actor training program? Very crafty. No truth. Saw a play last night of recent Guthrie BFA grads. Great play that I'd seen twice before, both in exceptional productions. Thought the play couldn't be screwed up.
These kids were fine. But boy was there a lot of blocking - and acting -- and speaking -- and character-playing. And accents. Walk three steps, make sure all three sides of the theater can see someone at all times, speak your lines with appropriate intention and meaning, and walk three steps, rinse and repeat. . . Apparently, according to actor training programs, you can't really move and speak at once. You can't really touch another actor unless its an incredbly meaningful moment. O, and when a character says that he or she feels something, you have to show us that he or she really feels it.
With all your technique and craft classes and textual analysis classes, could you just add a "Let's go observe real life" class. Take everyone to bars and restaurants all around the city and make them come back to the classroom and recreate that sense of spontenous freedom and unexpected moment-to-moment detail. . . OK, I'll work on that curriculum but something like that.
Sunday, March 09, 2008
Building Theaters
I just read the latest New York Times article on the "edifice" complex of regional theaters across the country. It's a good article, accurate and due. A worthwhile subject to explore. . . But -- of course but -- is it a journalistic principle never really to get in to the heart of the matter? Is it a journalistic principle, in an article that clearly has a perspective no less, only to skim the surface of what can be seen and quoted?
This is probably galling in all forms but especially galling when it comes to art. . . The author briefly touches on the sense that art and culture are not precisely the same thing. He calls art the "subtext" of culture in a way. This is a fascinating point since it highlights that building temples to culture like the new Guthrie building and others is not the same thing as building art for the community.
But I want to know more. The article makes an interesting economic case for growth and highlights some of the difficulties. But could someone please include in this discussion, what they all think they're doing artistically? Why don't they put the money in to companies instead of buildings? (That's a serious question not a rhetorical question.) What do they see as their place in the community? From reading these articles, you'd think that these theaters are simply and completely about the most comfortable experience for the audience and being an economic driver for the city. At the same time, however, there is this sense, this subtext, that those are simply the arguments that people are making in order to justify and build these buildings. There is something more ephemeral and"artistic" underlying the motivations as well. but what is it? Will someone, out loud, please explain to me what these buildings are supposed to add to the work in such a way that the work will be better, the community will be stronger and the imagination of the American life will grow? i know these people who work at these theaters. They didn't build the Guthrie JUST to have more bars and JUST to make more older patrons comfortable or JUST to make art look really shiney and cool for the city to have a national profile. They BELIEVE in something larger than the building. I'm saying -- what the fuck is it? And what does the building exactly have to do with it? And why don't they do a capital campaign to build a resident company? And why don't they do more new original work? Why aren't they throwing the great new voices of america right up there on their main stage where people are filling the seats just for the experience anyway? Or why aren't they doing bold, unheard-of interpretations of obscure polish plays?
Where people spend their money in this culture is a good indication of what they value. While its nice that so many cities are valuing art enough to build such nice homes for it, does it also mean that the cities value the appearance of art more than the value the art itself? how does this not trickle in the art itself?
if I remember correctly -- Joe Dowling has a great speech about theaters as secular churches. A principle which I basically agree with but, I'm starting to fear, for different reasons. I think the effect of art of the personality and soul is probably akin to the religious experience in that it lifts up and expands the consciousness and the soul, making us all feel more connected yet more humbled, and ultimately more alive, more capable, and more engaged. . . I think that's also what Mr. Dowling believes. . . Except somehow his analogy has been taken quite literally it seems. The state and city leaders heard the beautiful persuasive speech and said -- you know, theataer is like a secular church. "Let's actually build a church." So they built one. On the river. It's a bit awe-inspiring. Like a cathedral. . . But theater isn't like a secular church because it looks like one. It's the effect of the art that is on the stage. Could someone alter their perspective a little and focus a little attention on the stage. Yes, the money goes in the productions. But clearly purpose matters. Thoreau said that Americans have proven that they often hit what they aim for so why not aim higher than simply profit. . . Theater, in many ways, is doing quite well across america today. I really believe it is. . . in all ways except artistic. Alter the aim from comfort, entertainment, and full evenings worth of experience -- like a baseball game -- to blowing the audiences socks off their feet and tickling them mericilessly until they cry out in pleasurable beaten exhaustion. . . What if these moneyed theaters tried to do that? Do you think they could if they tried?
or, are they trying and just haven't told me yet? I mean, I do know these people. If they're keeping it a secret, they're doing an awfully good job of it.
Did I make any sense?
This is probably galling in all forms but especially galling when it comes to art. . . The author briefly touches on the sense that art and culture are not precisely the same thing. He calls art the "subtext" of culture in a way. This is a fascinating point since it highlights that building temples to culture like the new Guthrie building and others is not the same thing as building art for the community.
But I want to know more. The article makes an interesting economic case for growth and highlights some of the difficulties. But could someone please include in this discussion, what they all think they're doing artistically? Why don't they put the money in to companies instead of buildings? (That's a serious question not a rhetorical question.) What do they see as their place in the community? From reading these articles, you'd think that these theaters are simply and completely about the most comfortable experience for the audience and being an economic driver for the city. At the same time, however, there is this sense, this subtext, that those are simply the arguments that people are making in order to justify and build these buildings. There is something more ephemeral and"artistic" underlying the motivations as well. but what is it? Will someone, out loud, please explain to me what these buildings are supposed to add to the work in such a way that the work will be better, the community will be stronger and the imagination of the American life will grow? i know these people who work at these theaters. They didn't build the Guthrie JUST to have more bars and JUST to make more older patrons comfortable or JUST to make art look really shiney and cool for the city to have a national profile. They BELIEVE in something larger than the building. I'm saying -- what the fuck is it? And what does the building exactly have to do with it? And why don't they do a capital campaign to build a resident company? And why don't they do more new original work? Why aren't they throwing the great new voices of america right up there on their main stage where people are filling the seats just for the experience anyway? Or why aren't they doing bold, unheard-of interpretations of obscure polish plays?
Where people spend their money in this culture is a good indication of what they value. While its nice that so many cities are valuing art enough to build such nice homes for it, does it also mean that the cities value the appearance of art more than the value the art itself? how does this not trickle in the art itself?
if I remember correctly -- Joe Dowling has a great speech about theaters as secular churches. A principle which I basically agree with but, I'm starting to fear, for different reasons. I think the effect of art of the personality and soul is probably akin to the religious experience in that it lifts up and expands the consciousness and the soul, making us all feel more connected yet more humbled, and ultimately more alive, more capable, and more engaged. . . I think that's also what Mr. Dowling believes. . . Except somehow his analogy has been taken quite literally it seems. The state and city leaders heard the beautiful persuasive speech and said -- you know, theataer is like a secular church. "Let's actually build a church." So they built one. On the river. It's a bit awe-inspiring. Like a cathedral. . . But theater isn't like a secular church because it looks like one. It's the effect of the art that is on the stage. Could someone alter their perspective a little and focus a little attention on the stage. Yes, the money goes in the productions. But clearly purpose matters. Thoreau said that Americans have proven that they often hit what they aim for so why not aim higher than simply profit. . . Theater, in many ways, is doing quite well across america today. I really believe it is. . . in all ways except artistic. Alter the aim from comfort, entertainment, and full evenings worth of experience -- like a baseball game -- to blowing the audiences socks off their feet and tickling them mericilessly until they cry out in pleasurable beaten exhaustion. . . What if these moneyed theaters tried to do that? Do you think they could if they tried?
or, are they trying and just haven't told me yet? I mean, I do know these people. If they're keeping it a secret, they're doing an awfully good job of it.
Did I make any sense?
Friday, March 07, 2008
I Wish I Didn't Care
Argh. Just when I think I'm curing my addiction to useless political punditry, something happens that creeps into my head and won't get out.
Boy, do the Clinton's know about winning ugly. Ugly, ugly, ugly. Certainly, I'm not the only one who supports Obama in part because of a prayer to just be done with that kind of shit. Of course I think that the world is full of that shit. The Clinton's didn't invent it or control it, but, boy, have they internalized it. Maybe it does have to be that way. Maybe this is how the world works. . . Yet I can't help but think that the world works the way we say it does. If we reject that kind of politics than it is rejected. Of course people on the outliers will always play that way, or whatever way they see fit, but the majority can move on to something else. . . That's not the only reason I support Obama but, in truth, the Clinton's just kind of making me feel icky isn't such a bad one in my opinion.
Now- just to keep getting this trivial nonsense out of my head -- Certainly, Obama is going to have to come up with a good answer to the national security question in order to face McCain, so in that way its not horrible that this thing goes on longer while they prepare one. They need to be able to answer in a way that persuades the undecided to go with them, and maybe the attack from Clinton is a good warmup.
However, I can't see how this whole "Who's ready at 3 a.m.?" question helps Clinton -- why it would help Clinton -- and its partially the ludicrousness of some of this stuff that makes me sick.
First of all, what does that question mean? Like, he may be prepared to answer the emergency call at 5 p.m. but anyone can answer a phone in the middle of the afternoon. It's 3 a.m., when the lights are off, that we should be really worried about because, well, he won't be able to find the phone on the nightstand? Or, probably more likely, he's, well, I guess he's asleep so, you know, being asleep he might accidentally order a nuclear strike on Canada? I mean - what's the 3 a.m. deal? he's not going to actually wake up and think before he does anything? I mean, why is 3 a.m. the key time? I don't get it.
More importantly, I don't get how Hillary is somehow more qualified to answer that phone because, well, was she the one answering the 3 a.m. phone call in the Bill Clinton White House? Is she suggesting that she was? "I've answered that phone call before." She can't possibly be arguing that because, well, it would be kind of unconstitutional, wouldn't it? Since as First Lady, she was elected to do that. . . On the other hand, is she arguing that she is qualified now for that phone call because she can always pass the phone to Bill and he's experienced with those kinds of calls? I mean, I'm not seeing the point she's making. . .
This to me is the definition of a scare tactic -- some vague claim whose actual substance is so obscured that there is almost no way to argue with it. All it does is send chemical emotional fear signals to the brain: the dark night, the sleeping children, the unnamed emergency.
I mean, if the argument is that Hillary knows how to handle an international crisis because she's spent so much time in Washington isn't Obama's counter-argument that this whole Washington arrogance is absurd. Look what a wonderful job they've been doing lately. So she doesn't say that. She says something vague about a 3 a.m. phone call that, when analyzed, makes no sense from almost any direction.
Yup. Don't feel better. Maybe if I just work on something totally different I'll wash off this nagging disgust feeling.
Boy, do the Clinton's know about winning ugly. Ugly, ugly, ugly. Certainly, I'm not the only one who supports Obama in part because of a prayer to just be done with that kind of shit. Of course I think that the world is full of that shit. The Clinton's didn't invent it or control it, but, boy, have they internalized it. Maybe it does have to be that way. Maybe this is how the world works. . . Yet I can't help but think that the world works the way we say it does. If we reject that kind of politics than it is rejected. Of course people on the outliers will always play that way, or whatever way they see fit, but the majority can move on to something else. . . That's not the only reason I support Obama but, in truth, the Clinton's just kind of making me feel icky isn't such a bad one in my opinion.
Now- just to keep getting this trivial nonsense out of my head -- Certainly, Obama is going to have to come up with a good answer to the national security question in order to face McCain, so in that way its not horrible that this thing goes on longer while they prepare one. They need to be able to answer in a way that persuades the undecided to go with them, and maybe the attack from Clinton is a good warmup.
However, I can't see how this whole "Who's ready at 3 a.m.?" question helps Clinton -- why it would help Clinton -- and its partially the ludicrousness of some of this stuff that makes me sick.
First of all, what does that question mean? Like, he may be prepared to answer the emergency call at 5 p.m. but anyone can answer a phone in the middle of the afternoon. It's 3 a.m., when the lights are off, that we should be really worried about because, well, he won't be able to find the phone on the nightstand? Or, probably more likely, he's, well, I guess he's asleep so, you know, being asleep he might accidentally order a nuclear strike on Canada? I mean - what's the 3 a.m. deal? he's not going to actually wake up and think before he does anything? I mean, why is 3 a.m. the key time? I don't get it.
More importantly, I don't get how Hillary is somehow more qualified to answer that phone because, well, was she the one answering the 3 a.m. phone call in the Bill Clinton White House? Is she suggesting that she was? "I've answered that phone call before." She can't possibly be arguing that because, well, it would be kind of unconstitutional, wouldn't it? Since as First Lady, she was elected to do that. . . On the other hand, is she arguing that she is qualified now for that phone call because she can always pass the phone to Bill and he's experienced with those kinds of calls? I mean, I'm not seeing the point she's making. . .
This to me is the definition of a scare tactic -- some vague claim whose actual substance is so obscured that there is almost no way to argue with it. All it does is send chemical emotional fear signals to the brain: the dark night, the sleeping children, the unnamed emergency.
I mean, if the argument is that Hillary knows how to handle an international crisis because she's spent so much time in Washington isn't Obama's counter-argument that this whole Washington arrogance is absurd. Look what a wonderful job they've been doing lately. So she doesn't say that. She says something vague about a 3 a.m. phone call that, when analyzed, makes no sense from almost any direction.
Yup. Don't feel better. Maybe if I just work on something totally different I'll wash off this nagging disgust feeling.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Vantage Point
While on vacation this weekend, we saw the movie "vantage point." Not a good movie but it explodes well. I mean, when you're on vacation, it's loud enough to keep the thinking at the minimum amount. It's really not a good movie, but neither of us really minded while we watching it.
There were a couple rows of people in the back of the movie theater though who appeared to be "shocked! shocked! I tell you" that the movie kept rewinding and telling the same story from a different, well, vantage point, again and again. Even if you give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they didn't know what the gimmick of the movie was -- hadn't seen any advertisments, didn't really think about the title, etc. -- you'd think they would have gotten the hang of it after the second or third scene. . . You know, I mean, I'm not one to make jokes at the expense of others but, come on, even my dog gets trained faster than that. These people just kept getting more and more shocked by the structure of the movie as the movie continued. Now, I find it hard to believe that they hadn't heard something about the movie before they came, but then, while they're there -- learn, you motherfuckers, learn! Adjust! Will you please? Get the point? The movie is going to go backwards a few more times and show you the same action from a different point of view. That's what's going to happen. . . How did I figure that out? By watching the fucking movie! . . . And they wouldn't leave either. they seemed really pissed off. Then they stayed and were shocked anew with each new VANTAGE POINT! . . .
Not to sound like I'm defending what is largely a technically impressive and horrible movie, I couldn't help but also think as I watched -- "Would it have really been that hard to write better dialogue? I just don't think it would be that hard." Yes, I understand you don't want long Quinton Tarantino style banter. You want information conveyed quickly. Etc. etc. I still don't think it would be that hard. . . I was doing it in my head as the movie went along. I'd give examples but I've blocked the horrible dialogue out of my head now.
Or is the reason that the dialogue sucks is because it would be hard for them to do it better?
oy.
There were a couple rows of people in the back of the movie theater though who appeared to be "shocked! shocked! I tell you" that the movie kept rewinding and telling the same story from a different, well, vantage point, again and again. Even if you give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they didn't know what the gimmick of the movie was -- hadn't seen any advertisments, didn't really think about the title, etc. -- you'd think they would have gotten the hang of it after the second or third scene. . . You know, I mean, I'm not one to make jokes at the expense of others but, come on, even my dog gets trained faster than that. These people just kept getting more and more shocked by the structure of the movie as the movie continued. Now, I find it hard to believe that they hadn't heard something about the movie before they came, but then, while they're there -- learn, you motherfuckers, learn! Adjust! Will you please? Get the point? The movie is going to go backwards a few more times and show you the same action from a different point of view. That's what's going to happen. . . How did I figure that out? By watching the fucking movie! . . . And they wouldn't leave either. they seemed really pissed off. Then they stayed and were shocked anew with each new VANTAGE POINT! . . .
Not to sound like I'm defending what is largely a technically impressive and horrible movie, I couldn't help but also think as I watched -- "Would it have really been that hard to write better dialogue? I just don't think it would be that hard." Yes, I understand you don't want long Quinton Tarantino style banter. You want information conveyed quickly. Etc. etc. I still don't think it would be that hard. . . I was doing it in my head as the movie went along. I'd give examples but I've blocked the horrible dialogue out of my head now.
Or is the reason that the dialogue sucks is because it would be hard for them to do it better?
oy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
