An Angry White Guy in Chicago

The Value of Culture

2009-11-10T05:02:00.043-06:00

What Does it Cost One to Say "I've Been to the Theat-ah!"?

Well, Cromer's Neil Simon Broadway debut closed after nine performances and everybody and his sister has an opinion why. You'd think that the failure of a classic comedy by Neil Simon ("a laugh every six seconds") and our own freshly anointed badass director in a Nederlander venue signaled the freakin' End Times, as if this thing was guaranteed sure-fire hit status out of the gate.

For my take, I think RobK probably has the most consistent idea: money.

Here's the deal: putting up a show, whether on Broadway with millions behind it or in a Chicago storefront with $45.00 behind it, is a gamble. No one - not Adam Thurman or Seth Godin or the Mad Men of AMC - can tell you any different. It's a crap shoot because no one can predict what an audience is going to collectively support. Yes - with big star names, it may have done better but those cards weren't dealt. Neither were the existence of the Jewish theater crowd of old or the desire of tourists to see the play or any other nonsense that is found to be the goat in the equation.

For $100.00 you could go see this show - a play of which you could rent the movie for $2.99 and watch in your house or online through Netflix. Multiple times with pauses to pee and text your girlfriend. For $100.00 you expect to see a Hollywood star or get a handjob during intermission. For $100.00 they should include a car wash and a steak dinner. For $100.00, there better be a chandelier falling from the ceiling, a 75-foot statue of Buddha and 75 of the 80 Rockettes doing that line dance thing. Cromer's idea of spectacle is strip the production down and use real bacon as an effect. Frying bacon does not compare to Chitty Chitty Bang Bang flying over the audience when you're spending 100 bones to be "entertained."

Cromer directed the classic Neil Simon and few people wanted to drop $100.00 to see it. So effing what? Scott Barsotti's zombie love story sold out houses in Pittsburgh and no one's lauding a "new wave of theatergoing" because of that. Brighton Beach failing in NYC is about as significant as the state of Trump's hair or the moisture level in the copper of the the Statue of Liberty.

For $100.00, I can recommend five plays for you to see and can pretty much guarantee you'll like three of them.

The rub is this: there is nothing inherently wrong with charging $100.00 to see a revival of a Neil Simon play on Broadway. If, however, the price is too steep for the market to bear, all those Free Market theories of how competition is good for business come into play. If you live by the idea that putting up a Neil Simon play should be a quick and easy buck, then you're living by the idea that art is there simply to make a buck. If art is your method of making money, it'll bite you in the ass every single time.

THEATER REVIEW: Kill the Old Torture Their Young

2009-11-09T05:32:00.072-06:00

Kill the Old Torture Their Young
Written by David Harrower
Directed by Kathryn Walsh
Presented by Steep Theatre Company

Despair and longing are hard to play without become overly precious or slightly histrionic and Harrower tries to present us with an entire community trapped under the weight of both. Portraying the listless malaise of thwarted dreams and unrealized goals while also making us actually care about the people suffering it is the true challenge of a play like Kill the Old Torture Their Young. At the end of Steep's latest, one feels impressed with the specificity of the skilled actors and the strange repetitive combination of both naturalistic and lyrical dialogue but wonder why did this story of loosely collected lonely, soul-sick people need to be told and what do we walk away with other than the idea that life is toil and regret?

Essentially about a random grouping of people in a nameless Scottish town, Walsh "Americanizes" the piece by having the actors use midwestern accents and makes the town feel more Flint, MI than Glasgow. Here we encounter a Rock Singer (who vaguely resembles Adam Ant and George Michael) who bookends the play with monologues about the emptiness of his travels, a documentarian "returning" home to film his memories, the thick-headed but ultimately tragic Studio Executive in charge of financing the documentary, a wannabe actor filled with rage at his convenience store job, the switchboard operator who once dreamed of being an artist and her strange attachment to a lonely, cantankerous old bird watcher.

Some of the threads of the play are riveting - I found Jim Poole's Studio Executive to be genuinely annoying at first blush and he slowly grew on me in lasting and surprising ways. His oblivious relationships to anyone who will listen to him talk represents the one character most like a real person and Poole's performance is remarkable. Niall McGinty's desperate, manic actor/clerk/driver is nuanced and fun, Peter Moore's documentarian is again an excellent performance by an excellent actor, and Bronwen Prosser's strangely cadenced, open-eyed deadpan reminded me starkly of the work of Mamet muse Rebecca Pigeon and made for a fascinating foil for Leonard Kraft's more impassioned old man.

Less successful (though not due to the performances) were the connection of the Rock Singer to the world of the play and the odd love segue between Moore and Julia Siple - neither had much impact on the direction the story took and seemed more like an opportunity for Harrower to include drunken speeches we've all heard from artists who want to prove how deeply they feel in the most annoyingly precious "Don't You See How Special I Am?" language. Listening to a rock star wax existential and a filmmaker Hamletize his choices about how to portray a town which we have no real connection to left me cold.

Walsh does a nice job of utilizing the tiny storefront space and, although the transitions were executed with same muted energy that the play unfolds in - as if moving at a quicker pace would've interrupted the drone of sadness, the staging is clean and interesting. The only truly missed moment was the only moment that breaks the overwhelming ennui of these characters and that is the flash of violent rage that comes from the frustrated actor as he beats down the filmmaker in the street. First, Walsh places it as far away from the audience as she can which naturally dulls its impact and second, the stage combat used looks like McGinty was afraid to actually touch Moore, let alone make it look authentic enough to shock us.

Steep is one of my favorite little engines in the Fringe scene and usually the material is up to the high standards they set in their skilled productions. Unfortunately, while you could see the strong work these cats put into the show, the play was less than the sum of the parts.

Hey, GOP? I OBJECT TO YOU!

2009-11-07T16:15:00.000-06:00

Why Not Get a Freaking Bouncer??

Irony for Stupid People

2009-11-06T13:02:00.000-06:00

Gotta Hate It When This Happens...

Thousands of protesters came to Capitol Hill yesterday for Rep. Michele Bachmann’s (R-MN) protest against health care reform, capping months of fear-mongering about the dangers of so-called “socialized” medicine. However, the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank notes that at one point, one of the protesters had a heart attack. Luckily, federally-employed medical personnel were able to quickly attend to him — even though they were part of government-run health care, which is supposedly quite dangerous...

All was well except that a guy carrying this sign:

was refused treatment because EMTs on site felt he was just too stupid to live...

Friday Roundup: Chris Brown Loses His Street Cred in One Outfit

2009-11-06T05:14:00.001-06:00

SNAP!

See more funny videos and funny pictures at CollegeHumor.

As freaking mean as that comment was I submit that if politicians were as honest and blunt as comedians, we'd have a lot less horseshit to wade through in government. Sometimes the only answer is to simply say it like it is.
_____________________
Quote of the Week

Our Good Man Adam Thurman brings us a re-defining of PR:

What's missing is a relationship with the public that is both bigger then any individual piece of work you are doing AND not driven by any weakening press outlet.

What's missing is a consistent way of telling the public not just WHAT you are doing by WHY you are doing it.

What's missing is authentic, effective, public relations.

I couldn't agree more. For my part, I try hard to not merely plug the shows I'm involved with but reveal our processes behind the scenes (warts and all.) At one point, The Devil Vet suggested that theater bloggers that are also practicing artists blog about the specifics of their rehearsals in order to give the rest of us some insight on that process but the general feeling was that that would compromise the very process it was set to disclose.

I still think showing the public the tricks behind the "magic of theater" is, if not a great way to plug the production, at least more interesting than posting a press release on RobK's blog and announcing that people should come see the show.

FYI: that was NOT a slam to Rob. He just makes it a regular practice to post this stuff as a service to the rest of us. Calm down, Koz...
____________________
When Did This Look Become Cool? Did I Miss Something?

I'm probably the least "street" person on Planet Rap, but WTF? I suppose I'd keep my trap shut if I were a woman, you know, because Chris would smack me around and then blame it on me, but I think he's kind of looking for a smackdown himself.

______________________

Changing the Word Doesn't Erase the Attitude

A couple of weeks ago, I made the case that banning derogatory words does not change the inherent attitudes they represent - that, in fact, the words are harmless it is the suppression of those words that give them power and the ideas behind them are what is truly dangerous.

Here is an example (from an email that was not intended for blogging so all personal specifics have been removed) that illustrates my point:

My son, Xxxxxxx, is potty-training right now & as a reward, has been getting new action figures. If a gun is included, we throw it away, explaining to him that we don’t have “boomers” in our house (as he calls them b/c we withheld the word “gun” thinking that would dissuade conversation – how quickly we learned! No vocabulary for it simply meant he’d find another word – not, not talk about it!)

'Nuff said.

______________________

I'm Glad I Don't Blog in London...

Apparently Kate Winslet won about $40,00 from a paper that printed she was "the world’s most irritating actress."

I mean, think of all the producers and directors in town that would line up to sue me for my opinions on their shows. Besides, everyone knows that Megan Fox is the world's most irritating actress.

Speaking A Language I Understand

2009-11-05T13:35:00.012-06:00

Maybe This Rocco Cat Has Something I Can Listen To

On top of the fact that NEA received a bit more dough than they've had for awhile, it looks like ol' Rocco and I may be on the same page:

In a June 4, 2000, New York Times op-ed piece, he asserted that certain nonprofits didn't deserve public subsidy because, instead of taking artistic risks, they had adopted a "template of success . . . from the commercial arena, which, in the end, is not dedicated to the art so much as to the audience."

Hell, I've been saying that for years.

A guy in charge of the NEA that distinguishes the difference between art and commerce makes this Angry White Guy just a tad less angry. In fact, my tin heart just felt a palpitation when I read that.

Rock on, Rocco.

Finding a Better Insult

2009-11-05T05:14:00.059-06:00

Is Sexist Language Really the Best Insult or Just Inaccurate and Lazy?

From Alternet: Why It's Not Smart to Call Women Conservatives 'Whores'

"When Alan Grayson called a female corporate lobbyist a "K-Street whore" -- and was attacked as crude and sexist at the same time that he was lauded as gutsy and honest -- he played a role in a familiar script: hero of the left (MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, Bill Maher) attacks female villain (Hillary Rodham Clinton, Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin) using sexist language. Progressive feminists soul-search about liberal misogyny. Mainstream media talk about sexism for 5 seconds. Then the media move on, and no one learns a thing. Repeat."

There are two things going on here - first is Ganeva's idea that calling women derogatory names based upon their gender is just kind of pointless and conflicting for those of us in favor of equal rights; the second is that 'whore' is a sexist term.

Second comes first:

Pronunciation: \ˈhȯr, ˈhu̇r\
Function: noun

Date: before 12th century
1 : a woman who engages in sexual acts for money : prostitute; also : a promiscuous or immoral woman
2 : a male who engages in sexual acts for money
3 : a venal or unscrupulous person

The only consistent use is someone (male or female) who engages in sexual acts for money. So, while the term "whore" isn't a compliment to anyone, I'm not entirely certain it is specifically a sexist term. That said, it is a pretty easily misunderstood term and, when referring to a woman who will sell her talents to the highest bidder to lobby for the modern version of a giant, purple chapeau'd pimp, even if it fits it probably isn't gonna win you points on the sexually enlightened list.

As for Ganeva's first point - that the use of gender specific slurs actually gives those conservatives who behave like greedy, little monsters an actual and legitimate complaint. Whether Malkin is a "big mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it" or Palin is "a pig with lipstick," the point is that Malkin is a vapid, stupid shit for brains and Palin is a dangerously stupid person without any regard to their sex. Using the fact that they're women as an insult is equally stupid and obfuscates the truth of the things about them most objectionable and that is their ideas.

Finally, Ganeva isn't right about this because she's a woman. She's right because SHE IS RIGHT.

"And for the record, this is not a plea for politeness.

I love that Olbermann stares down the camera and doesn't back away from controversy. I love the loud, aggressive language deployed in the blogosphere. I call people names all the time. I also have no interest in spinning arguments about how men are naturally more aggressive, and how if women, with their purportedly angelic nature, took over, everyone would be much nicer.

Politeness is boring. Combating the insane lies propagated by conservatives in their efforts to derail a progressive agenda demands strong language. But you don't have to be a wuss to avoid falling into the trap of sexism."

Now there's a broad I can get behind...

I Believe...

2009-11-04T05:13:00.024-06:00

...that, while as G. Gordon Liddy states "Courtesy is the lubricant of society," a sense of entitled courtesy has no place in the creation of anything but mediocre art. Creating art isn't hard in a "placing oneself in harm's way" or "physically backbreaking work" sort of thing, but it is hard in an emotionally raw sort of way. Only those with thick skin survive.

...that, of all the Halloween candies available, nothing even comes close to the rich, chocolatey goodness of a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup. All other candies can suck it. Except for maybe Sweet Tarts. They're cool.

...that the most compassionate act is to be as completely honest with people in your life - lying to make others feel better in the moment is simply laziness and only serves to put off saying today what will ultimately come to bear tomorrow...

...that it is better to be excellent than to be popular, smart than pretty, respected than well known, and to love boldly with no reservations than to cower in the possibilities of pain.

...that the best possible remake of an older television franchise would be the Six Million Dollar Man. In this economy, $6 million gives Steve Austin an eye patch, a Segway and a kickass suit. And a little guy that runs around and makes that "wah-wah-wah-wah" sound when Steve moves around or looks real hard with his functioning eyeball.

Playing Chess

2009-11-03T13:24:00.022-06:00

Obama and the Dems Are Getting It Done in the Long Game

"Rep. Tom Price (R., Ga.), a conservative leader in the House, concedes that, in some cases, Republicans are being outflanked. "The administration is pushing so many things so rapidly it's difficult to concentrate on all of them," he said."

Like most progressives, I almost desperately wanted Obama to blow into the White House and knock the GOP back on their boots and say, "The People Have Spoken. Now Get Outta My Way - I'm Here to Make Some CHANGES!" And it didn't work out that way. In light of his historic ascent to our top seat and the circumstances surrounding the previous decade, it felt like it would be spiritually righteous for our New Black(!) SuperCool Prez to aggressively get his Queen in the game and just start toppling the big pieces immediately.

Barack apparently had a different game plan in mind.

Looks like he and his Aaron Sorkin White House staff are playing a smarter game than we would. Which I suppose is good - I'm certainly not qualified to sit in that Big Chair. I'm also pretty impatient. I like my results fast and immediately gratifying like the speed of my instantly prepared meals. But Obama and Team aren't working at McDonalds so I guess being patient with him is a virtue.

No fireworks in the slow, steady chess game. Not much fun to watch. But the slow, steady player is the guy that takes home the other guy's King.

Funneling Perspectives

2009-11-03T05:13:00.076-06:00

The Group Written Play and How the Hell Do you Do That?

The (edward) Hopper Project follows in a long line of WNEP Theater productions that employ a fairly difficult technique known as the "group written project." In the past, we've been incredibly successful with this sort of thing from The Armageddon Radio Hour to The Mysteries of Harris Burdick to The Lost Weekend. The process can either develop into an evening of short pieces written around a theme or, the more difficult route, a play that sounds like it has one voice but is culled from the work of many voices. I like to refer to the work required to create the second type "funneling perspectives."

For ...Hopper... I'm coming in late to the game. Jen (our former Artistic Director) initiated the project and had numerous writing meetings working with ten-twelve writers who all wrote short scenes inspired by specific paintings by Edward Hopper. I was not a part of these workshops and was not privy to a lot of the development of pieces - likewise, Jen did not leave us a completed script when she moved on, so it became incumbant upon me to figure out to make this thing a cohesive whole.

Personally, I prefer the "one voice" semi-narrative form, so that's been my approach. As with all of our group written projects, there are a couple of basic concepts that it is assumed (uh-oh) that we will abide by:

1. It is a group written project which means that no one writer is more important than another.

2. Once a scene has been submitted, it is the assigned Head Writer's (or Director's, in the case of ...Hopper...) responsibility to weave the pieces submitted into a cohesive play.

3. Once a scene is submitted, it is the assigned Head Writer's (or Director's, in the case of ...Hopper...) prerogative to edit things to assist in creating the whole play.

The first step is to read and re-read all the submitted pieces. Figuring out tone and length and theme and all that. And while reading and re-reading, stepping back and trying to find connections between all these pieces to stitch them together into a structured quilt of words that A) create a narrative whole and B) ultimately sound like the same voice.

Step two involves making some decisions. What is the play about? How will it be staged? Is there a strong abstract element or a more concrete world being created? Will it be a small-ish cast in multiple roles or a large cast in less scenes per actor? What is the desired experience for the audience?

And then I kill babies. "Killing babies" means I have to begin editing things to more accurately reflect the answers to the questions in the second phase. And the editing step gets a bit hairy because I'm cutting into the work of the writers. Rather than simply take the pieces they've written (which were written as complete pieces) and insert them into a running order, I start snipping and trimming, losing what has now, in the face of the bigger picture, become extraneous or problematic. It can't be a negotiation - anything less becomes art by committee and committees are like creative cul de sacs.

Sometimes, when writer ego and director ego are in sync, the process is smooth. One writer for ...Hopper... wrote a great little scene but in the practicalities of the overall play, I could only use the dialogue between the characters (he had written an incredible image collage to be played out onstage during the dialogue but I couldn't use it.) The writer listened to my suggestion and immediately agreed. Another writer had the ending (perhaps the last full page) of her scene eliminated entirely. She argued with me about the edit. I finally told her that instead of debating with me on it, re-write it in such a way that it becomes clear to me that it fits and is necessary. She did and we kept her ending. She made it work in the context of the Big Picture.

It's all about taking the perspectives of ten writers and funneling it down into one unifying perspective (mine) and creating a collaborative play.

Sometimes this process breaks down a bit and fast adjustments need to be made.

This past weekend, one of the writers decided that an edit was simply unacceptable. She asked me why I edited her ending page. I explained why. She said she preferred it the way it was. I explained the same thing to her as I did the other writers - re-write the ending and make it work in the context of the rest of the script. She refused. She had worked on the piece for a long time and was done with it and mentioned that she would rather pull it from the show entirely than acquiesce to my edit.

Now - anyone who has known and worked with me will tell you that throwing an ultimatum my way is pretty much a waste of time. I've had actors threaten to quit shows and they are fired before their lips dry upon saying it. It isn't that I'm inflexible or necessarily authoritarian. It's just how I roll. I figure, don't back the Irishman in a corner.

I gave her the options:

"1. If you are unwilling to take another stab at the ending of the scene to make it work for me in the context of this piece, I'm leaving it as I edited it.

2. If that is unacceptable, then we'll pull it from the play and I'll replace it with something else. Which I think is a shame because I've already cast the roles and I rather like the scene.
or

3. You can take another stab at the ending to make it work. If this is the direction things go, we can talk about it tomorrow but I'll need the re-write by Wednesday at the latest.

The choice is pretty much yours to make but I'll need a decision by tomorrow afternoon because time has run out at this point."

So she pulled the piece. The other writers decided it was important to convince her otherwise - they invited her to the next meeting discussing the project and over the course of the discussion I became increasingly angry as it seemed that she was relying on a sense of artistic integrity that, to me, felt both misplaced and shortsighted given the timing of things. Finally, after what was what one of them described as "...about as much fun as a vasectomy" I blew my stack. I felt that she and I had decided the issue the day before and this relentless grinding away in effort to change her mind was a waste of time and energy.

I don't resent her choice - she wrote it and it is hers to pull. That said, it violated the assumed (eek) rules of the road and put me in a position that if she had decided to re-write it and wasn't happy with, say, how the actor was playing the character, she might decide to pull the piece mid-rehearsals and create more unnecessary drama. While I liked the piece (with the edit) I'm ultimately glad she pulled it when she did. And honestly, in eighteen years of doing it this way, this is the first time I'd ever been confronted with this situation.

Now the other writers are all taking a stab at writing a brand new scene specifically for the actors already cast in the scene.

All of this water being under the bridge, I can say that the script we have is excellent - the individual writing is top notch and it feels like the work of one voice.

Here's a question: how does this process (and the ensuing difficulties presented by it) sound to you? Is this a process you'd submit to or would you instead fight to avoid any editing by a director? I know that Oobleck works without a director and that other groups work with co-directors and some, like the Mammals, have an all-inclusive Writer/Director/Producer.

What do you think?

Lieberman Prefers No Healthcare Reform at All

2009-11-02T13:02:00.003-06:00

"I want health reform..." says the Senator from Crazy Land.

Except he prefers nothing over a public option.

So the 47 million uninsured, the insurance companies gouging families into bankruptcy and eviction, and the 40,000 per year that die from lack of proper insurance is better than Medicaid for everyone?

Sign the petition, man.

Sign the petition!

The New American Dream

2009-11-02T05:12:00.053-06:00

A husband, father and aspiring actor-scientist stages a balloon ride hoax that grips a good portion of the news watching population of the planet for several hours in order to be seen and heard by those executives that create reality TV shows. Fame and money for simply being himself is what he is after. He is now a national joke and will likely lose his children, but at least he has an action figure...

A thirteen year old kid decides to launch himself off of a moving truck wearing an armor comprised of beer cans strapped to his body in order to create a 'viral' video. He breaks his collar bone, right cheek bone, right ankle and will likely lose his sight in his right eye. He does, however, get almost 500,000 views on You Tube.

A Wall Street broker looks incessantly for the loophole in SEC regulations for that "sweet spot" that allows him to manipulate the system just a bit more. Like a gambler trying to find a legal way to count cards, he uses the law to bend itself around like a Chinese contortionist. And he makes out like a bandit.

We've always been a country of criminals and cranks, drunks and teetotalers, perverts and prudes. There have always been those in the country that would skin their children alive to grab that brass ring, to win that big jackpot just once in their lives. Nothing truly wonderful in this country was ever created that someone, somewhere didn't try to figure out how to make a buck on it. Perhaps the AWG of the Great Depression felt things had simply gotten out of control in his day but it seems to me, sitting smack dab at the outset of the beginning of the 21st Century and the Great Recession of my generation, that things have hit a tipping point in those scrambling ass over a teacup to give their fellow man the shaft to get ahead.

If nothing else, the YouTube phenomenon and the Reality TV trend proves that temporary fame is the new coin of the masses, while gaming the system regardless of consequence is still the arena for the Wall Street Robber Baron class. I suppose in a recession of this magnitude things like the Richard Heene Balloon Boy episode is to be expected but that doesn't make it any less sad and pathetic. And I suppose that the glory of getting 500,000 people to witness you smashing your nuts on a stairwell as you try to skateboard down it is a reward of sorts but as a goal it's no more important than winning a Hot Dog Eating competition or drinking a gallon of milk in an hour.

The saddest thing about it is that in the scheme of things, both the Balloon Boy and the You Tube moron at least are harmless if not ultimately embarrassing - the Wall Street guy, who seems respectable enough, is the one who does the most damage.

Happy Halloween!

2009-10-31T06:01:00.004-05:00

Friday Roundup: The Keepers of Clurman's Flame

2009-10-30T05:51:00.041-05:00

Sounds About Right...

Microsoft has been trying to copy the Mac OS since time began. It ain't gonna happen, guys.
____________________
Quote of the Week

What often gets lost in posts such as David Cote's call to action is that this activity is a true contribution to the art of the theatre, a contribution made in moments stolen from lives that are already chock full of day jobs, art making, and everyday living. It is truly heroic, like Clurman's heroic life. And while from time to time things may get tired in the theatrosphere, and may not be as consistently insightful as some would wish, nevertheless these bloggers are the keepers of the flame. Most of the well-known theatre artists have abrogated this responsibility, choosing instead to focus on their own careers while feeling no responsibility to advance the field or to represent it to the larger society. In a time when the internet allows such artists to bypass the mainstream press and communicate directly with the world, most make no attempt to do so, leaving the field to flounder.

And so I take this opportunity to salute the theatre bloggers. Thank you for your work. -- The Prof

Welcome back, Professor Walters!

I think rationale for the blogging comes into play here as well. If the only reason one blogs is to promote his/her own shows, that's just another use of cool technology to sell soap. I know over the past four and a half years that the discourse (even the nasty battles) have somehow informed me about this crazy thing I do in the non-cyber life and that has value.

So, here's a second to the Prof's salute!
_____________________
If I Ever Get Arrested For...Whatever...

_____________________
Fun and Games With the Veto!

California Governor Douglas Quaid seems to be slapping his legislature around in a most passive aggressive way:

I love that the Gov's spokesperson passes this off as pure coincidence. Nope. Arnie's much too canny for that. Did you see all the crazy-ass stuff he pulled in Commando?
____________________
We Have a Cast!

The (edward) Hopper Project
Written by Mary Jo Bolduc, Jen Ellison, Bob Fisher, Tom Flanigan, Don Hall, Merrie Greenfield, Joe Janes, Cholley Kuhaneck, Rebecca Langguth

CAST:

Scott T. Barsotti
Mary Jo Bolduc
Regan Davis
Lauren Fisher
Dennis Frymire
Kevin Gladish
Lori Goss
Merrie Greenfield
Marsha Harman
Joe Janes
Andrew Jordan
Patrick Kelly
Ian Knox
Vinnie Lacey
Erin Orr
Amanda Rountree
Jacob A. Ware

With all the yabbering about theaters working together, we have a cast that comes from WNEP Theater, Will Act for Food, Second City, Prop Thtr, New Leaf Theater, and Wild Claw Theater. I couldn't be more excited if you offered me a ride in a hot air balloon.

____________________

Anatomy of an Audition

2009-10-29T05:41:00.111-05:00

What the Hell Was He Thinking?

The following is as close an approximation of the process I personally like best to audition people for a show (scripted.) It certainly has its flaws and I'd much prefer to just do it the way The Group Theatre did in the thirties - rent a resort in the woods for the summer and workshop the plays until a cast emerged but WNEP doesn't have the dough and no actors I know have the time or ability to simply quit their day jobs for two months in the summer. So, this is the best I have.
_____

THE GENERAL AUDITION

I put out the All Call:

WNEP Theater is holding General Auditions for the World Premiere of “The (edward) Hopper Project,” an original two-act play scheduled for production January 15 through February 21 (Th – Su) at the Storefront Theater on Randolph.

Auditions are Saturday, October 24 (12:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.) and Sunday, October 25 (12:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.) at the DCA Studio Theater, 77 East Randolph. Must be available for callback auditions on Monday, October 26 (7:00 p.m. -10:00 p.m.)

To schedule a five-minute audition, please email Don Hall at hall@wneptheater.org. Include your full name, email address, and contact phone number. We will schedule a slot for you and contact you with audition requirements. There is minimal pay but major coolness…

For years, the best way to get the notice out was to contact local trade papers and get a listing weeks in advance. In the wake of modern social networking, simply putting the casting call on our website, this blog, and on Facebook was sufficient to garner enough high quality talent to get the job done.

The venue was arranged quite some time ago, thanks to the incredible folks at the DCA Theater Program, at no cost to us.

When I begin scheduling people for their slots, I ask for a 2-minute monologue. As I've written before, I really don't need two minutes to determine whether or not I can cast someone and thus need to see them again, but it is an industry standard, is pretty light lifting preparation-wise and I've found that asking people to come and do anything for two minutes or tell me a story seems to put too much pressure on the actors. Don't know why but we get far less auditioners when I ask for something odd than when I ask for standard.

SIDENOTE: My favorite auditions are for DADA Soireés - man, those are like a show in and of themselves...nothing standard about those inclined toward nonsense poetry.

Prior to the audition dates (we do two days to give folks a chance to adjust schedules if they're interested but busy) I have to break down the script and figure out how many people I'm planning on casting. This number will ultimately determine the number I call back as I like to have at least two people per role offered if I can. For this show, I finally landed on a minimum of seventeen (a pretty big cast for a non-Equity, non-musical): ten men and seven women.

Finally the day arrives. I'll print out ten more conflict sheets than I need - a form that includes the full rehearsal and performance schedule so that I don't cast someone only to find out later they'll be missing half the rehearsals - in case I have walkups, the schedule and my notes on characters. For this show, I pre-cast a few folks from our company but not necessarily in specific roles. This practice isn't as unusual or as unfair as it sounds - if I know I want someone in the cast, it's silly to waste everyone else's time.

On Saturday, we had app. 70 scheduled over two days, 22 dropped out either the day before or earlier that morning (thank you all for the correspondence - it does not go unnoticed) and Dianna, the production Stage Manager and Rebecca, my assistant director accompanied me. Sunday was much the same but with more folks on my side of the table.

For generals, I have three piles for headshots - Called Back, Maybe, and Nope. I make the decision before the actors have run through a minute of their monologue and take notes on them until they're finished (unless someone comes in and grips me and I am compelled to watch the whole two minutes like Marsha, Jacob and Ian.) Some of my notes read like this:

"...shifty eyes...what's with the hands?"

"...works for an LA version of the play but not on a real stage..."

"...UGH. I mean, really?"

"..Wow. Lois? Verbena? Multifaceted."

"...what was that accent? British? Alabama? Dunno..."

For this particular set of auditions, I decided to do away with the standard Wait Until Sunday to Find Out I'm Calling You Back because when Marsha did her piece I just looked at her, knew she was coming back and told her on the spot. That became the standard for the two days.

THE CALLBACK AUDITION

I called back 35 - a couple dropped because of forgotten conflicts or emergencies - ended up with 32.

I printed up ten "sides" (excerpts from the script) and prepped by assigning each actor a couple of roles I was looking at them for to keep the melee manageable. People show up - they're nervous, I'm kind of nervous, too so I babble and try to put them at ease. This ends up eventually feeling silly and I wish I was still smoking so I have an excuse to go stand outside away from them.

I start things by explaining the show concept a bit, the casting process some, and any other bits of business. Then everyone gets up on their feet and I warm them up. All I really want to do is get them talking to each other and relaxing some, so I try to make it verbal and fun. It's loud and chaotic but I'm also getting a chance to see them as themselves with others. I notice a few folks that are really into it and I make a mental note.

The first 90 minutes is to get everyone on their feet and hear them read from the sides - I assign sides and partners, give them a few minutes to get acquainted with their roles and partners and then we go. Like the generals, I allow them to get through the whole scene or monologue so that everyone gets that fair shake, but I'm already seeing some who are making bold, aggressive choices and whether those choices fit my concept of the show.

I like having everyone in the room to watch the scenes. I believe it gives the actors an opportunity to become familiar with the scenes they may be reading later and to see other actor's choices in how to play them and either ape those choices or go in a completely different direction. It also feels good to have a crowd of actors applaud you when you're done and makes it apparent that they are all very good.

After the first 90 minutes, I send some folks home with the caveat that it does not mean they aren't going to be cast but that I've seen all I need to see from them. While it didn't happen this go round, I have sent people home at this point and ultimately cast them in the show.

Now we get to the nitty gritty and talent has almost nothing to do with my choices. I combine actors in scenes to "see" them together. This is the part that gets hairy because I'm looking for chemistry and compatible energies and contrasting vocal qualities and how actors look together and a host of crap that the actors have no control over. I get a little frenetic at this juncture because my mind is racing three steps ahead of what is going on - politeness goes out the window and I feel a bit like Jackson Pollack, mumbling to himself and throwing paint in wide arcs at an unseen canvas. Thankfully, I don't pee on the canvas and I'm not drunk. I pace around the room, squat to see things, angle myself around the room, stabbing my pen into my notebook and generally behaving like a nutcase.

I give each reading a broadstrokes direction - "These two love each other," "This scene is more sad that you think," and "Play it like you want to just jump each other's bones but aren't allowed to."

A moment to explain the necessity of having a great staff on my side. I know exactly what I'm looking for but need to be open enough to let lightning strike and recognize it as such. At one point, I got stuck on one particular pairing of characters. I had several women that could easily play the role and several guys that could as well but no Great Matchup. And Rebecca knew this. She looks at me and says, "I want to see these two actors read this scene." Mind you, I did not see either actor in these two roles AT ALL. But I trust Rebecca. She's a sharp cookie, that one.

So I call these two actors up to read the scene and it seems to look...right. And then the female actor smacks the male in a playful moment and lightning struck. And, as one of the writers said later, everyone in the room knew they had lost those roles.

And then it is over.

My staff has been instructed to cast the show as if they were directing it. I cast it on paper. We all head someplace to talk about it. I keep my casting choices to myself and go through each character and actor and let my staff tell me who they would cast. If they all agree with a choice I've made, it is settled. If there is a discrepancy, I ask them to explain it and I let them debate the issue.

In the end, I tell them the cast and we're done. It's an exhausting process but it always seems to work - I generally have spectacular casts. If I've done my job at this point, then directing the show is a freaking cakewalk.

And you know? I'm looking at my cast list for The (edward) Hopper Project and this is going to be a cakewalk.

Why Lieberman Must Be Stripped of EVERYTHING

2009-10-28T13:23:00.002-05:00

What an Incredible Shit Stain on the Country's Drawers

• In 1993, Joe blocked the Clinton Healthcare Reform

• In 2005, Joe backed both the Bankruptcy Bill that sided with the credit Card Companies and then backed Bushie's judicial nominees

• In 2008, Joe backed McCain for President

• Also in 2008, Joe voted against banning torture

• Some more in 2008 - Joe suggested that Obama was both a Muslim and a Marxist during the campaign

• Told Glenn Beck (!?) that he thought a Democratic 60 vote Super Majority was "dangerous for the country"

• Yesterday, decided to support a Republican filibuster on Healthcare Reform

Time to strip him of his chairmanship, his party status and his clothes and whip him in the public square. If he wants to be Independent, let him be independent.

I Believe...

2009-10-28T05:31:00.027-05:00

...that no matter how good Microsoft can make PC's, they're never going to be as bitchin' as Mac. Never. Get over it. And, yes. I have an iPhone and I will tell you about how effing sweet it is every single day. Why? Cuz it's EFFING SWEET!

...that if the Senate and the House pass the "Opt Out" Public Healthcare Option, I'm glad as hell I live in Illinois and not Alabama. It's OK, though - they pass this and eventually those states that opt out will start to become the reverse of John Galt's rich person exodus - those red states will be populated with rich people and no one left to pump their gas because everyone else will be moving to a state they can get healthcare in. Which will sort of make Texas just a big suburb of Mexico...

...that green apples are superior to red apples and that those Pink Lady apples you can get at Trader Joe's are the freakin' best.

...that Joe Lieberman is the suckiest suckhole to ever suck on things suckable. Mr. "I'm in Favor of Healthcare Reform Legislation but Not if It Contains a Public Option and Not If It Doesn't Contain a Public Option" needs to have Obama's boot launched straight up his ass...

...that, except for maybe Lieberman, Supreme Court Justice Antonin ~~"I'd Vote Against Desegregating the Schools in the Sixties"~~ Scalia is just about the scummiest dirtbag on K Street. [Turns out Scalia didn't commit this boner and those of us on the Left need to own our FOX News-worthy response. I still think Scalia is a jag, but Lieberman is definitely far higher on the Jackass Scale today...]

The True Audition Test

2009-10-27T05:21:00.024-05:00

It Rarely Has Much to Do With Your Monologue

An actor gets the headshots, prints the resume, buys the clothes and practices the myriad monologues he found in books filled with monologues and from random plays. She asks certain friends, other actors and directors she knows to watch her and coach her on her monologues (one comedic, one dramatic, contemporary, with and without accent, etc.) He sweats this crucial step because that monologue is the first real impression he will give in the worst part of any show - the audition.

I can't speak for other directors - I'm not institutionalized (meaning I didn't go to college to learn how to do this work) but I can give those actors out there a bit of insight that I believe is true for most directors out there.

1. If you're going to miss the audition, take the freaking time to email or text message or G-chat or call and let them know. It's just courteous and plain smart.

2. Take some time and find out what the director is looking for - I'm happier than shit to tell you what we're up to and what you can do to get "the edge."

3. Getting to callbacks has very little to do with your headshot, resume or monologue. I know within about fifteen seconds whether or not I can use you in my show - a good director knows in advance what he's looking for to some degree - and the only reason I let you get through that 2-minute monologue that somehow manages to be five minutes long is because you came all this way, there's no reason to be unnecessarily rude.

This means if you don't get called back, it isn't because you suck. It means you either A) weren't right for any of the roles, B) didn't fit a certain "look" the director is going for or C) don't have enough natural charisma to hold anyone's attention for longer than fourteen seconds. The first two aren't your fault; the third you can't really do anything about.

4. If you get called back, you're good. Relax. Now you audition for real. Have fun, make bold choices, listen to everyone and HAVE. FUN.

That's pretty much it. You know, don't lie about your conflicts and if you have another gig you're waiting to hear about, don't waste my time. Nothing...and I mean NOTHING...is more frustrating than going through the mind-bending pain in the butt it is to cast a show and then have an actor you struggled over casting tell you he's waiting to hear from another director for another show.

THEATER REVIEW: Frankenstein

2009-10-26T05:11:00.057-05:00

Frankenstein
Directed by Sean Graney
Adapted from the Mary Shelley novel by Sean Graney
Presented by the Hypocrites
at The Museum of Contemporary Art

It's all there - text from Mary Shelley, Marlowe and Aeschylus as well as from Richard Brinsley Peake's 1823 stage play Presumption, or the Fate of Frankenstein, images from what seem to be the Leatherface movies, Prometheus and Paradise Lost, with the 1931 Boris Karloff film played on an upstage screen that seems to be stitched together from random parts like the skin of the Creature. Included is all the grandeur of the Epic Tale mixed in with Graney's own modern language jokes and meta-asides to an audience that is perpetually moved around in an anti-promenade style.

Graney almost always tends to stuff his pieces with more ideas than they can possibly hold, but with his Frankenstein, it all works and works remarkably well in just over an hour.

Harkening away from the Monster that grunts and stumbles like a giant mutant child, this Daemon (played with a spectacular finesse for such a lumbering creation by the Matt Kahler) reads a whole lot and has a lot to say - about Death, about the act of creation, about the need for companionship, about the existence of the soul. Played out like a crazy, action packed philosophical argument between John Byrnes's almost working class Victor Frankenstein and his hideous plague to his own life, Graney's script is dense and intelligent without being ponderous or dull.

With hundreds of bloody dolls hanging from the endlessly high ceiling and a series of desks, bureaus, benches, and boxes littered about the playing area and using as a focal point what looks like a bizarre grungy hotel room with a hanging metal bed (kudos to the imaginative physical creations of Jim Moore), the actors move the audience around through sheer momentum, pointing their way and relying on the audience's attention and sense of self preservation to get themselves out of the way.

Everyone pretty much knows the story and Graney knows this, too. He cuts from moment to moment, sometimes playing out scenes unfamiliar to us carefully and spoofing those we know at other times and the only moments that didn't work for me were the two songs sung by the Monster and his Bride. The sound was too fuzzy and the lyrics too disjointed to be either terribly interesting or engaging. Their inclusion is the one stylistic idea that just doesn't fit.

I'll confess - we had auditions all day long yesterday and I was so tired that Bob Fisher and I went to Borders prior to the show and I fell asleep at a table. Had we not already purchased the tickets, it would've been very easy to simply call it a night and head home. Man, am I glad we bought those tickets last week - Graney's Frankenstein is exactly the smart, funny, bizarre and perfectly placed piece (at the The MCA and during the Halloween season) that I wanted. I'm not a big Halloween fan but I like my monster tales and Frankenstein nails it solidly. It only plays through November 1, so I recommend you get tickets today.

What's This Play About?

2009-10-24T06:05:00.025-05:00

Taking a Group of Scenes and Making a Play is Fun

We had our second reading of what was really the First Draft of The (edward) Hopper Project last Tuesday.

It went well - the Gosses went and picked up beer, wine, and pizza for the folks who came - app. 30 people were in attendance. Afterward, we had a great post-read feedback session and I've spent the better part of this week (and all day yesterday) reading the feedback and visualizing the concepts therein.

One question that is always central to my personal aesthetic is the question of what we're trying to say to the audience. Like DADA, I don't necessarily want to spoon-feed any answers to the audience but pose questions that are in need of answer. In order to do that, I believe you have start with something to say and then use that as the unifying principle behind the work. Ultimately, why does this play exist and what story are we trying to tell?

Looking at the Hopper paintings does that for me - it poses an endless series of possibilities, moods, and ideas and I don't want a play inspired by that to provide our definitive answer to his work. We have ten different authors and thus ten different responses to his work - what can the common thread be? What is true for all ten perspectives?

And then it hit me.

I immediately went back to the various pieces and re-read some. Bob Fisher had written a piece called New York Movie and within the dialogue, the CITY GIRL, who is the usherette pictured in the painting, has this exchange (her character name is now MARLA):

MARLA
Everything terrible you’ve ever thought up or saw or read in the paper…eventually everything terrible happens to you. To everyone. You’ll know loneliness. You’ll know hunger. If the Indian doesn’t tear off your scalp, eventually the worms and the alley rats will.

MARY
That’s it?

MARLA
Yes. Sometimes lonely. Sometimes bored. Except every other Friday night.

MARY
A new picture?

MARLA
Yes. Till then it’s avoidance, anxiety, fear…but in the movie house we are all looking at the same thing. That gives me…something

MARY
Comfort?

MARLA
Maybe. I don’t know.

"...in the movie houses we are all looking at the same thing..."

And in the theater, and the art galleries, and concerts. And I realized that that is what this play is about - the unifying principle involved in collectively viewing art. While every person in the audience is disconnected by life and circumstance, when they are all seated in that black box, viewing the same piece of live theater, they are a brief, impermanent unit. Each will take from the experience what they will but for the time between curtain and applause, they are all part of something a bit larger than themselves.

And that is what this play is about.

I'm glad I figured this out (thanks, Bob) because today we're auditioning actors to populate our little Hopper world.

Sweet.

Friday Roundup: What We Fought For

2009-10-23T05:52:00.069-05:00

Why Not Just Have Them Wear a Letter on Their Chests?

Honestly, this is why I'm glad I no longer live in the South:

A new Oklahoma law that forces women who have had abortions to post details of the procedure online is being sharply criticized by women's rights groups, and is now being challenged in court by two Oklahoma women.

As of November 1, doctors in Oklahoma will be compelled -- under penalty of criminal prosecution -- to post the details of each abortion they perform online. Among the details to be posted for every abortion is the patient's age, marital status and race; her financial condition; her education; and the total number of her previous pregnancies.

In the age of Facebook and Twitter, this is even more heinous than it sounds. While no one - NO ONE - should be ashamed to terminate an unwanted pregnancy (especially in the Age of Ridiculously Escalating Overpopulation), it is a practical reality that this is a personal and private choice. Exposing these women to the vitriol of mouth-breathing paternalists and the religiously brainwashed is criminal.

I mean, this would be like putting online all the late night gay porn ordered by Pastors and Republican Senators - nothing wrong with gay porn but I guarantee you Pastor Bob and Senator Bill would prefer their privacy be respected.
____________________
My Mom is EXTREME!!!

Mom likes to go a little crazy for the holidays and, in preparation for Halloween, she bought a book called Extreme Pumpkin Carving II. Yes - there was enough demand for pumpkin carving that is considered extreme that they published a sequel.

This year, her extreme pumpkin was lit with a freaking ROAD FLARE. Mom loved it because, not only was it a massive fire hazard, it also made an awful hissing sound. Next year? Going Napalm and a bear trap.

This apple fell, like, within a foot of that tree...
____________________

See more funny videos and funny pictures at CollegeHumor.

____________________
Quote of the Week

Say! This sounds vaguely familiar...

So I'm going to reveal, right now, the secret to getting young people to come to your theatre and see shows. Because it's a no-brainer and I'm tired of having this conversation (For reasons that should become obvious in a second). Here's the secret:

(1) Do work they want to see.
(2) Endeavor to do it well
(3) Offer it at a price point they will find reasonable

____________________
Auditions this Weekend...

If you didn't get in touch with me in time to get an audition slot for tomorrow or Sunday, swing by the DCA Studio Theater (77 E. Randolph) and do a walk up audition. There's some room and all you need is a 2-minute contemporary monologue. We'll be there from noon to 5PM both days.
____________________
An American to Be Proud Of...

Who Decides What is Offensive?

2009-10-22T05:42:00.086-05:00

And When Does the Word Lose Its Power?

OK. It has been pointed out to me that perhaps I have been particularly incendiary of late - that the Angry part of the moniker has taken a far more histrionic tone and that my love of the musical sound of obscenity is causing things to become a bit unsavory. That, as Travis B. points out, my "unvarnished truth" has been becoming "unnecessary rudeness" with no apparent reason.

Fair enough. I suppose if less things and people would go out of their way to present themselves as stupid, this blog would be all butterflies and rainbows, but I'm also one who believes in taking harsh criticism to heart, so I will.

A lot of what has been at issue for me lately is the fact that language choices considered offensive can get in the way of communicating. And, after all, communication is key in a society so hellbent on not listening to one another (my experience Sunday has left me a bit perplexed, dontcha know...) Further, it seems that if the Churchill quote up above means anything, I suppose I've been pretty small because some of the things I've been ranting about are pretty inconsequential. And I'll agree with some of my critics - I've been writing more from the gimmick of the AWG than from myself. Mea Culpa.

OK. Enough humility, huh?

The question of the day is when does a word - any word - lose it's effectiveness to communicate and become One of the Forbidden Words? And who decides it's offensive to say it anymore?

Most reasonable folk will agree that saying Nigger or Faggot is just sort of jarring. Whether it's meant as a pejorative or not, certain members of Society have shamed us into seeing those as Unsayable Words - words so strong in context that it is impossible to separate the words from the contextual viciousness that spawned them. But is banning these words really the way to eradicate the viciousness?

From Lenny Bruce (I've posted this before):

Are there any niggers here tonight? Could you turn on the house lights, please, and could the waiters and waitresses just stop serving, just for a second? And turn off this spot.

Now what did he say? "Are there any niggers here tonight?" I know there's one nigger, because I see him back there working. Let's see, there's two niggers. And between those two niggers sits a kike. And there's another kike— that's two kikes and three niggers. And there's a spic. Right? Hmm? There's another spic. Ooh, there's a wop; there's a polack; and, oh, a couple of greaseballs. And there's three lace-curtain Irish micks. And there's one, hip, thick, hunky, funky, boogie. Boogie boogie.

Mm-hmm. I got three kikes here, do I hear five kikes? I got five kikes, do I hear six spics, I got six spics, do I hear seven niggers? I got seven niggers. Sold American. I pass with seven niggers, six spics, five micks, four kikes, three guineas, and one wop.

Well, I was just trying to make a point, and that is that it's the suppression of the word that gives it the power, the violence, the viciousness. Dig: if President Kennedy would just go on television, and say, "I would like to introduce you to all the niggers in my cabinet," and if he'd just say "nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger" to every nigger he saw, "boogie boogie boogie boogie boogie," "nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger" 'til nigger didn't mean anything anymore, then you could never make some six-year-old black kid cry because somebody called him a nigger at school.

At the turn of the last century, in New York, one of the most discriminated against groups of people were Irish Catholics. The term's "Mick" and "PaddyWagon" were as derogatory and filled with menace and hate as Nigger was in the 1930s - 1960s. The Irish were lynched, beaten, sold, shanghai'd, and were subjugated to the lowest rungs of New York's societal ladder. Yet, at some point in the last century, these terms became benign. I'm Irish and none of the traditional ethnic slurs bother me one bit.

Now, some will say that that is because the Irish are white and thus still in the dominant racial class and I suppose there's some truth in that. However, in 1903, telling an Irish immigrant he was in the dominant racial class likely meant nothing. Discrimination and bigotry is discrimination and bigotry no matter who the target is and there is simply no special class of people who get most injured status (except for perhaps the Native Americans and there are still sports teams with the Native American equivalent to Faggot in plain sight.)

Once the bandwagon starts rolling down "I'maMinorityToo Lane," the wheels on that wagon start to buckle from the collective weight of those offended - from the mentally challenged to the overweight to the bald and on and on. The fact is, if given the chance, every single type of group on the planet can be boiled down to a common reference point and claim that it constitutes "hate speech."

Take those known to be alien to our citizenry and here illegally:

Immigration activists are calling on retailers to stop selling a controversial “Illegal Alien” Halloween costume featured on the websites of Walgreens, Toys R Us, Target, Meijer, Amazon, and other retailers. It includes an orange prison jumpsuit with the words “Illegal Alien,” a fake “Green Card,” and an alien mask.

As loathe as I am to side with anyone at FOX Noise, they do have a point. It's not a particularly funny joke, but the idea that calling someone who lives in this country illegally and or foreign birth an "illegal alien" is not pejorative and, if it is, then calling those who steal things from us "thieves" is equally offensive as is calling any Republican woman from Alaska who is just slightly stupid "Sarah Palin." And the controversy is actually driving up sales of a stupid joke costume. So the outrage only filled the bank account of the mean spirited cat who thought of it in the first place.

Here's the thing: every racial group on the planet has slurs against it. To assume that blacks or gays or undocumented immigrants have had it harder than, say, the Indians under British rule during Gandhi's heyday or the Polish Jews under Hitler's bid for world domination or the Muslim's during the Crusades is not only shortsighted but ridiculous. Humankind sucks. We make war against those different from us for no other reason than it's more exciting than farming or jerking off. We imprison the poor, we ignore the hungry and we myopically destroy ourselves and our planet with little regard for future generations. And every race has assholes who want nothing more than to dominate the other races.

Are there more assholes among the dominant racial class? Of course. Because in America there are more white people than any other race. By virtue of simple math, there have to be more white assholes than black or gay. I'd imagine that worldwide, there are more Chinese assholes than any other race combined. Law of freakin' averages, man. But regardless of your skin tone or cultural background or sexual preference, asshole is the common denominator.

And we all can join hands and create the Circle of Brotherhood and vow to never say those awful things again and, in that big Circle, I guarantee you there are at least 10% that are assholes. And by forcing the censorship of the obvious words, we make it easier for them to hide behind labels that the concept of racist slips off of like "Birthers," and "Teabaggers," and the Religious Right.

Does that mean we shouldn't circle up anyway? No. While I don't believe in any sort of racial Utopia where we all get along and sing happy Beatles tunes to each other, to quit trying is to give up the fight to the assholes. And in spite of my cranky nature, I cry at Rocky movies because I am inspired by those who keep fighting for that tiny scrap of dignity however they can.

"...it's the suppression of the word that gives it the power, the violence, the viciousness..."

Lenny was a junkie, hippie Kike but he sure had a point.

I Believe...

2009-10-21T05:32:00.033-05:00

...that anyone who sets me up as their version of That Which Oppresses Forward Progress - y' know, in anything bigger than getting a seat on the Brown Line - is aiming pretty low.

...that the best comedy speaks Truth to Power and exposes the hypocrisy of human existence. And throws in a few poop jokes just for measure...

...that maybe we did come from aliens as our ancestors and maybe we should all get a shot on a reality TV show but that having your six-year-old lie about a balloon hoax is plain nutty. And, in certain lights, against the law...

...that words only receive the power we give to them by reacting to and oppressing their use and that Lenny Bruce was right fifty years ago when he said, "...that it's the suppression of the word that gives it the power, the violence, the viciousness..." which is why we should, as Dizzy Gillespie advised, "Play every note loud. Especially the wrong ones."

...that sometimes the Road Less Traveled is not what you expected but you travel it anyway because it's better than following the crowd.

Partisan Differences

2009-10-20T05:22:00.199-05:00

The Grand Experiment Number One
Wherein I Engage the Other Side in Vigorous Debate and Try to Find Some Common Ground

After seeing Michael Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story on opening weekend, I issued a challenge. Anyone of the Conservative GOP bent who wanted to see the movie with me would get a free ticket and pizza and beer afterward. The rules were pretty simple: each had to watch the entire movie jeer-free and listen to every word (including the credits with the quotes.) After, I would sit quietly as each bashed Michael Moore as the anti-christ for app. 30 minutes with no defense from me and then we would discuss the ideas in the film.

I was surprised that I actually had takers. As it turned out, I had eight certified conservatives contact me and we set up the time and place: Sunday, October 18, Landmark Century Cinema, 2:15PM showtime, Pat's Pizza after. Bill C, the one conservative commenter on the blog, didn't get back to me in time but we're setting up another time soon.

A couple of things that I thought about the day before and in the morning on Sunday during my workout included the idea that these folks read my blog, so they know how I feel about the issue, and that, like an anthropologist, this was my chance to observe these no-neck morons in the real world and ascertain exactly where they're coming from.

"You're a lot nicer in person. I thought you'd just yell the whole time but you didn't. Thanks for the pizza."

As it turned out, five of my original eight showed up. They were all aware of the fact that I would be blogging about this encounter and it was requested that I not use their actual names in the post. We discussed (before the movie) my using just their first names but I decided it would be more fun to give them George W. Bush-like nicknames - after all, they all voted for Operation Brainless Leader, why not?

In attendance was:

• Frat Boy - not actually in a fraternity, Frat Boy just looked like one of those dudes. 23 years old, a senior at UiC (Business major), clean cut. Originally from Iowa. Reads AWG every day even though he basically has no use for theater except comedy. Never comments but has a group of friends who spend their breakfasts about three days a week talking about how full of shit I am.

• Trixie - Frat Boy's girlfriend. Like a really tan Barbie. Smarter than Frat Boy. No major yet. Never reads my blog but hears about it from her dude.

• Nicely Nicely - so named because he bears a striking resemblance to Stubby Kaye. Thirtyish CPA. Reads the blog about once a week, usually only the Friday Roundup and I Believes - ignores the theater stuff but has gone to see a couple of shows I recommended and thinks he and I have the same taste in theater and movies. Would never go to see a Michael Moore film but this just seemed too good to pass up. Brought a notebook of research with him.

• Pug - this guy was prepped and ready to do battle. Twenty-five. Works in the Loop. Reads AWG every day - has his own (anonymous) blog. Looked pissed and clenched from the get go. I could tell this was gonna be torture for him until it was time for pizza and brews. I wondered if he was gonna even make it that long.

• Dan the Man - on first glance, this guy looked like a CEO of some corporation. Salt and Pepper Reed Richards hair, square jaw, I think his jeans were pressed. Tall. Used his height to hold court. I half expected this guy to offer me a kickback if I'd come on board the Capitalism Train. Of the crowd, this guy gave me the creeps - like if I said the wrong thing, my mom would be kidnapped or something. Hadn't read AWG until a friend (who describes Dan the Man as the über-Republican) sent him the link and dared him to come.

All five voted for McCain/Palin.

All but one regret Palin's inclusion on the ticket.

All five watch FOX News regularly and hate Rachel Maddow.

Only one even knew what Chicago Public Radio was - two wondered what kind of music we played.

Only one has money invested in stocks.

"I thought maybe this was going to be a prank and you wouldn't show up."

I got the tickets (Nicely sprung for popcorn and sodas for the group without being asked...) and we went in. I asked, while we waited, who had seen SICKO. None of them. Fahranheit 9/11? Trixie and Nicely had. Bowling for Columbine? Only Pug missed that one. They all pretty much agreed with my assertion that once Moore became overtly political and anti-Bush, they had written him off as a propagandist.

We watched the movie. Everyone followed the rules (even Pug) and while there were a few half-hearted derisive laughs, each listened and watched. It was strange, watching both the movie and them - I knew when certain things were coming and wanted to catch their reactions when I could.

When it was over, Pug looks over at me and says, "Exactly what I expected - Obama gets a fucking pass."

I smiled.

"I defend the financial industry not because I believe it is without flaw, but rather to balance the media bullshit that refuses to see any of the good."

We came out into the day and I could see they were itching to take me down a few pegs - especially Pug and Dan the Man.

"Do we want to start on the walk over or hold our thoughts until you receive your promised grub?"

Dan the Man jumps in immediately, "I'd suggest we wait. You might change your mind if we start before we order."

"Cool." So I asked them about their iPhone apps and a sense of relaxed companionship began to take over. Frat Boy was pretty funny and talked about how much he liked improv. "Not to do it, though."

We get to Pat's, order three pies and a couple of pitchers of MGD.

Pug goes into the fact that Moore has benefited from capitalism and that he's a hypocrite to criticize the system he benefits from himself. As promised, I keep my big fat mouth shut. When it becomes apparent that I won't defend Moore, Trixie jumps in and complains about the jabs at Christianity in the film and Nicely and Dan band together to argue Moore's timeline issues but mostly stick to GOP talking points about Columbine and F9/11. No one talks about how fat Moore is - I assume it's because Nicely is pushing maximum weight limits himself and that would be awkward.

"OK. Enough about Moore. Let's talk capitalism, yes?"

Nicely was ready.

"Which version of the buildup to the Iraq Invasion is more historically accurate - the Bush administration's or Moore's?"

We spent about 40 minutes going over basic economic theories and the predictions of economists on both sides of the fence. I mentioned Keynes and the idea that no 'ism on its own is ever sufficient for the good of the majority of the citizenry, but that a combination of 'isms is necessary. We talk about the fact that our education system is essentially socialist in nature - the counter to that is that it is a shitty system.

After some continued hammering of economic theorists, Frat Boy claims that anyone smart enough can manipulate numbers to support any outcome. I agree and we all (except for Pug, who is getting more agitated as he drinks his beer) that economic theory is a bit like gambling in that there are so many factors that come into play on any given day that to lay blame, both good or ill, on any political ideology is kind of silly. Frat Boy mentions that one of his business professors told him that in class and so we all concede that an authority has laid it down.

Dan the Man throws out the point that Moore's film really should be titled "Greed: A Love Story" because it isn't capitalism that causes the problems invoked but greed. I point out that Greed is the Engine that drives Capitalism - the relentless pursuit of profit is the centerpiece of the 'ism. Pug calls me a jackass. I call him a fucker. And we laugh. "There's the Angry White Guy after all," says Frat Boy. Trixie points out that it isn't capitalism that is bad but those people who abuse it.

"It's not a lack of regulation that is the problem. It is a lack of enforcement of those regulations against those companies who abuse the system."

And we talked and debated until around 7:30PM. And then we parted ways.

Highlights included:

• No one could explain what a derivative was and ultimately agreed that it was as explained in the film, essentially an invention so complex that no one could regulate it.

• Everyone agreed that the film does expose a lot of folks in power gaming the system - the Dead Peasant thing, the privatized juvenile home with the corrupt judges, the creditors constantly increasing mortgage rates until eviction is an inevitability, the airlines paying poverty-level wages to pilots.

• The discussion had highs and lows, extreme combativeness, some ballbusting, some tempers flared but somehow there was an awful lot of laughter and head shaking.

• Interestingly enough, all five had a more passionate defense of FOX News than capitalism. And my pointing out that fact just pissed them off.

• For about 25 minutes, we argued about the causes of the Civil War - my contention was that it was all profit motive that started the secession - Dan the Man agreed but pointed out that without the Civil War, we'd still have slavery.

I can't say that any minds were changed. I can't say that, if the benchmark for success of this experiment is a complete understanding of one another, it was a success. I can say that I had a pretty good time as did my guests. And none of them helped fund that fat Communist but still will have at least a more informed opinion of the film they will all go and bash. I suppose it's too much to ask that those of us on such polar opposites of ideology understand each others' motives and reasons.

I'd love to wrap this all up in a bow and write that we can all get along and that these issues are simply not important enough for the vitriol, but I can't. Anymore than I could simply relax and write off racism or overt misogyny, I can't just overlook the opinions of Right Wing America as harmless differences of opinion. Those differences have real world consequences - consequences that Moore outlines pretty clearly in his film. To ignore them is to give those motivated by blind greed a pass.

So. Who's next?

THEATER REVIEW: Mrs. Gruber's Ding Dong School

2009-10-19T05:12:00.086-05:00

Mrs. Grubers Ding Dong School
Written by Robot vs. Dinosaur
Directed by Nat Topping and Greg Wendling
Present by Robot vs. Dinosaur at Gorilla Tango Theater

Disclosure: I was comped as press (?!) and the Artistic Director of RvD is my best friend. Also, several of the pieces come from his 365 Sketches project which I am producing as a ten day festival in June. I'm usually harder on the work of my friends than I am most, but I figured I should warn you of my potential bias...

Parenthood is, from what I'm told, a blessing and a curse. Children are wonderful in their guileless ability to see those things in our daily walk through fresh eyes; they're also us without the societally driven stop gaps that prevent us from behaving like the selfish, self-absorbed monsters we start out as. And so we lie to them to give them false hope, to control them, to give us just a moment of respite from the screaming and greed inherent in the human animal.

We tell them fairytales about mythical creatures that reward us if we behave a certain way. We tell them that crime does not pay, that if they study hard they will get a good job, that they each are smarter and more talented than the kids next door. And we hide the regrets and disappointments we have in our own lives, the hard truths that only living can teach, and the true nature of our fellow beings.

Spoofing the legacy of children's programming (from Romper Room and Captain Kangeroo to Sesame Street and Zoom!) is a tired cliché. It's been done so often (Pee Wee's Playhouse, Avenue Q, and a billion different Off Off Broadway and Off Off Loop theaters and in basements in Seattle, LA, and almost every major and minor theatrical and televised outlet) and so well, that to do a spoof of children's television is a trap for most comedy groups.

Taking cues from Wonder Showzen, RvD has avoided the trap and come up with a truly successful blend of embracing all that feels cheesy and sugary about the genre and exposing the dark hypocrisies that those who create this work have bubbling underneath. And it's really, really funny in that dark, tasteless way that Wonder Showzen is - the only thing missing is the device of using actual children.

Topping and Wendling have assembled a strong, funny cast (including the deranged, funny and a little scary talents of Rebecca Levine as Mrs. Gruber) and, in spite of the slight production values (not cheesy and cardboard-y enough to look crappy on purpose but not glossy enough to feel genuine - except for the Diversity Chicken suit which looks exactly right) manage to craft a fun and high energy evening that never overstays its welcome and ends with a solid Upright Citizens Brigade style "gotcha."

Aside from the writing, which is tight and to the point for the most part and only rambles when its supposed to, the fun is in both the bizarre situations presented and those strange little moments that catch you off guard into an unasked for guffaw.

Many sketch comedians forget that while the Pythons, Kids in the Hall, and Mr. Show played wild, off-the-wall characters they were also making biting satire underneath. The scene of a snippet of a Mary Poppins-esque nanny recreating the "Feed the Birds, Tuppence a Bag" moment provides us with an actual crazy homeless man selling cans for a dollar on the premise that fish have lasers; a happy, go-lucky cloud gets bored being upbeat and tries to learn how to be a racist because it looks more exciting than the tedium of sugar cookie joy; the Career Day that includes the morose experience as a Sex Crime Reenactment Doll. Each caught me off guard and each made me laugh out loud.

The small moments that the actors bring to the table are equally fun: the drunk racist sings his tuneless and rhymeless song about racism and then does a strange drunken box step dance; a kid with a lazy eye is considered expendable; a cloying puppet tries to make counting a cancer patients coughing fits a learning game. And just about everything Mrs. Gruber says and does leads to the inescapable conclusion that she is not which she pretends to be.

The mugging is kept to a minimum and the frequently awful singing is balanced by some great vocals by Jill Fenstermaker and the surprisingly sweet voice of Topping. And the show doesn't end until a good three minutes after you leave the theater so stick around out front for a moment.

If you haven't checked out Robot vs Dinosuar in the past, this is the one to introduce them. I've seen them a number of times and, with Mrs. Gruber's Ding Dong School, they get it just right.

Mrs. Grubers Ding Dong School

Fridays and Sturdays at 8PM

Through November 21