About Me
- Freeman
- Matthew Freeman is a Brooklyn based playwright with a BFA from Emerson College. His plays include THE DEATH OF KING ARTHUR, REASONS FOR MOVING, THE GREAT ESCAPE, THE AMERICANS, THE WHITE SWALLOW, AN INTERVIEW WITH THE AUTHOR, THE MOST WONDERFUL LOVE, WHEN IS A CLOCK, GLEE CLUB, THAT OLD SOFT SHOE and BRANDYWINE DISTILLERY FIRE. He served as Assistant Producer and Senior Writer for the live webcast from Times Square on New Year's Eve 2010-2012. As a freelance writer, he has contributed to Gamespy, Premiere, Complex Magazine, Maxim Online, and MTV Magazine. His plays have been published by Playscripts, Inc., New York Theatre Experience, and Samuel French.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Streaming Foreman Rehearsals
George Hunka gives everyone the heads up on this very cool development.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Monday, November 24, 2008
Leage of Independent Theater Announces Formation
LEAGUE OF INDEPENDENT THEATER ANNOUNCES FORMATION
New advocacy group to promote Off-Off Broadway’s economic and artistic interests
First membership meeting Dec. 7,
A team of prominent independent theater artists and producers proudly announce the creation of The League of Independent Theater, Inc. (LIT), a membership-based advocacy group and business league representing
The mission of LIT is to promote the economic and artistic interests of its members, ensuring that independent theater remains economically viable for its practitioners. The organization will advocate on behalf of the decades-old tradition of Off-Off Broadway theater.
Membership in LIT is open to any artist, company or technician working in theaters of 99 seats or less in
Says LIT Executive Director John Clancy, an acclaimed director and Off-Off Broadway veteran who co-founded the New York International Fringe Festival: “I haven’t been as enthused and optimistic about an organization since the early days of the Fringe. Our members are entrepreneurs, business-savvy, and wildly creative. Our job is simply to harness that remarkable energy and effect real change in our territory.”
LIT’s priorities include:
1) Achieving substantive, meaningful changes to the Actors’ Equity Showcase Code to respond to the needs of the independent theater community.
2) Advocating for the establishment and preservation of Off-Off Broadway venues and rehearsal spaces, including lobbying for arts-friendly amendments to the building and tax codes and developing industry-enhancing relationships with real estate developers and interests.
3) Increasing funding from grant-giving organizations as well as supporting the campaigns of public officials who actively promote the independent theater community.
LIT is organized to qualify as a 501(c)(6) business league in order to engage in advocacy and lobbying for its members, without the lobbying limits applicable to 501(c)(3) organizations.
LIT’s Executive Director: John Clancy, Executive Artistic Director, Clancy Productions
LIT’s board of directors includes:
Paul Bargetto, Director,
Martin Denton, Executive Director, The New York Theatre Experience, Inc.
Shay Gines, Executive Director, The
Michael Goldfried, Director
Robert Honeywell, Co-Artistic Director of Brick Theater
Leonard Jacobs, Theater Critic,
Abby Marcus, Managing Director, Vampire Cowboys Theatre Company
John Pinckard, Producer
Moira Stone, Actor
Erez Ziv, Co-Founder/Managing Director, Horse Trade Theater Group
Subsidiary Rights for Smaller Companies?
Garrett Eisler goes into the thorny subject of subsidiary right here. As always, a great post and good thoughts.
The whole subject makes me think about (as always) the world of Off-Off Broadway and how most of the smaller companies, where a large amount of new work is developed, often expects very little from playwrights and are extremely generous with time, resources and money. Playwrights tend to be very protective of their small piece of a small pie, which is reasonable. I think that larger companies, with big endowments and subscribers, likely get very little return in a real way from a 40% cut of a play.
In the end, I think this is less about money than it is about perception. By asking for subsidiary rights, a company exerts its own perception of influence. It's hard to argue that a great production at MTC or Playwrights Horizons or the Roundabout won't extend the life of a play considerably. The subsidiary right issue is basically a way to codify that idea in dollars and cents.
We can argue the amounts (I'd say 40% is enormous, especially if a playwright is already giving a chunk to an agent); but I'd wonder aloud if playwrights shouldn't extend a small amount to Off-Off companies who simply don't make that demand. Because a larger house will not likely be helped or harmed by the subsidiary rights...but every little bit of income helps smaller companies with tight budgets enormously.
For example, what if a small company on a shoestring budget presents the first production of a play in New York...and that small production receives good press and goes on to be produced all over the country. It won't make anyone much money at all...but for any of hundreds of smaller companies dedicated to new work, a 5% take could help pay for rental, rehearsal space, you name it. Again, it would be rare to see much income in this way, but it wouldn't be impossible.
More than the income, though, it would give smaller companies a little bit of the perception that clearly larger companies enjoy. It takes great will and hard work for tons of companies all over the country not only to mount new productions, but to continue to do so in perpetuity. Maybe the hope that their productions will see some benefit for them after their single run is some small incentive. It might also help playwrights and producers have a better informed view of one another as participants in a transaction that has practical implications.
Small companies, in far greater numbers than the well-funded few, do exceptional work just to break even. I know it's a bit of heresy for a playwright to talk about giving away a little bit of income. But you know...helping one another is part of what makes things work.
What do you think?
The whole subject makes me think about (as always) the world of Off-Off Broadway and how most of the smaller companies, where a large amount of new work is developed, often expects very little from playwrights and are extremely generous with time, resources and money. Playwrights tend to be very protective of their small piece of a small pie, which is reasonable. I think that larger companies, with big endowments and subscribers, likely get very little return in a real way from a 40% cut of a play.
In the end, I think this is less about money than it is about perception. By asking for subsidiary rights, a company exerts its own perception of influence. It's hard to argue that a great production at MTC or Playwrights Horizons or the Roundabout won't extend the life of a play considerably. The subsidiary right issue is basically a way to codify that idea in dollars and cents.
We can argue the amounts (I'd say 40% is enormous, especially if a playwright is already giving a chunk to an agent); but I'd wonder aloud if playwrights shouldn't extend a small amount to Off-Off companies who simply don't make that demand. Because a larger house will not likely be helped or harmed by the subsidiary rights...but every little bit of income helps smaller companies with tight budgets enormously.
For example, what if a small company on a shoestring budget presents the first production of a play in New York...and that small production receives good press and goes on to be produced all over the country. It won't make anyone much money at all...but for any of hundreds of smaller companies dedicated to new work, a 5% take could help pay for rental, rehearsal space, you name it. Again, it would be rare to see much income in this way, but it wouldn't be impossible.
More than the income, though, it would give smaller companies a little bit of the perception that clearly larger companies enjoy. It takes great will and hard work for tons of companies all over the country not only to mount new productions, but to continue to do so in perpetuity. Maybe the hope that their productions will see some benefit for them after their single run is some small incentive. It might also help playwrights and producers have a better informed view of one another as participants in a transaction that has practical implications.
Small companies, in far greater numbers than the well-funded few, do exceptional work just to break even. I know it's a bit of heresy for a playwright to talk about giving away a little bit of income. But you know...helping one another is part of what makes things work.
What do you think?
Pre-Order When is a Clock
While When is a Clock is in the midst of being proofed and all that jazz, it's live on Samuel French for pre-order.
Wouldn't you like to pre-order a copy?
It's good karma.
Wouldn't you like to pre-order a copy?
It's good karma.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Clinton as Secretary of State
It seems as if Hillary Clinton will accept the role of Secretary of State for the Obama Administration (that still has a nice ring to it). My view on this appointment, should it be finalized, is that it's a bold choice, a brave choice, and a risky move. Obama may simply be following the lead of Abraham Lincoln in keeping his rivals close. But having Clinton in a role that's this visible, in the age of 24 hour cable news and YouTube, begs an almost constant stream of behind-the-scenes stories about personality struggles and Clinton-era triangulation.
That concern might add up to a hill of beans (no pun intended): Obama has proven adept at managing the media, and Clinton is certainly experienced enough and capable enough to do a good job. But her foreign policy stances are one of the things that soured me to her as a candidate. She's surprisingly hawkish; or at least made great efforts to appear so in the campaign.
As Secretary of State, she'll be a member of a team, and the manager of a State Department that is in desperate need of repair. I'm curious if she can be the manager to put the State Department back together, and if she can truly bring her own team in line with a vision that she is simply carrying out, not spearheading.
That concern might add up to a hill of beans (no pun intended): Obama has proven adept at managing the media, and Clinton is certainly experienced enough and capable enough to do a good job. But her foreign policy stances are one of the things that soured me to her as a candidate. She's surprisingly hawkish; or at least made great efforts to appear so in the campaign.
As Secretary of State, she'll be a member of a team, and the manager of a State Department that is in desperate need of repair. I'm curious if she can be the manager to put the State Department back together, and if she can truly bring her own team in line with a vision that she is simply carrying out, not spearheading.
Charitable Contribution?
There was a recent podcast on nytheatre.com, hosted by Leonard Jacobs, about performance space from various perspectives. It's an insightful discussion. Near the end, the question of charitable contributions is floated.
The question is essentially: would the donation of a lease or space from a landlord to a theater company be viewed as a charitable contribution... and would the provide the landlord with a charitable deduction?
The discussion there asks the question in a wholesale way. I might wonder aloud, though, if there could be a financial mechanism created (or if one already exists) that wouldn't force landlords to relinquish their space entirely a single time to trigger a charitable event.
My day job is working with split interest agreements. Pooled Income Funds, Charitable Gift Annuities and Charitable Remainder Trusts. These are ways in which a donor can donate their money or securities, see some continuous income, a positive taxable event, and also be generous. So bear with me as I sort of generally muse.
If a donor created a gift annuity with, say, the organization I work with, they would get a fixed annuity rate for their life-time, based on their age, and the amount of the gift. If a single donor at age 65 created a CGA with $10,000, they'd receive a 5.7% annuity rate, or $570 annually. They would also be able to claim a deduction of around 50% of the value of the gift, as half of the value of the gift is charitable, and the other half is a benefit to them.
These mechanisms, often regulated like insurance, exist to create incentives to give. If theater, and the arts, is going to see a reduction in direct giving and corporate sponsorship, perhaps similar incentives could be created for landlords and/or renters.
For example, what if a theater owner or operator could donate half of the rental agreement to a producing theater company, effectively cutting the rental costs in half and then claiming the rest of the value of the rental as a tax deduction. That would mean landlords receive guaranteed write-offs, and companies have reduced bills. It would also reduce stress on landlords: even a deadbeat company that had trouble paying wouldn't be a serious problem, as half the value of the rental would be made up in a tax deduction regardless.
What's more, the value of the rental would not be the actual value the space at which the space was rented, but an appraised value of the rental space based on the market. Essentially, their are art appraisers and appraisers of home values: people whose job it is to assess the value of an asset. Rental space, in New York City, is an asset. So... what if a qualified outside appraiser would have to be employed to set a value on the rental space. That way, a company could write off the appraised value of half the rental, even if they discounted the other half for a theater company they believed in. It would work like this:
The appraised rental value of a space: $2000 a week
Donated amount: $1000
Rental price: $1000
Discounted price to the producer's favorite theater company: $800
Which means that even with a discount, the producer would be guaranteed the full other half of the appraised value. In effect, it would create an incentive to rent space inexpensively, effectively a backdoor donation to theater companies by the government, instead of direct grants and subsidies. It would be more useful, because it would affect everyone, instead of the lucky few with the capability to do extensive grantwriting.
Obviously, this doesn't exist. But at some point, neither did many charitable financial incentives.
Suffice to say, there are likely tons of problems with the wisp of smoke "what if" that I'm describing. But isn't it about time that theater caught up with the sophistication of other industries, when it comes to lobbying for tax incentives and its own economic health?
Wait...do we have lobbyists for theater as an industry at the state and federal level? Who can push for this kind of tax legislation? Who can argue for it?
If not...why not?
The question is essentially: would the donation of a lease or space from a landlord to a theater company be viewed as a charitable contribution... and would the provide the landlord with a charitable deduction?
The discussion there asks the question in a wholesale way. I might wonder aloud, though, if there could be a financial mechanism created (or if one already exists) that wouldn't force landlords to relinquish their space entirely a single time to trigger a charitable event.
My day job is working with split interest agreements. Pooled Income Funds, Charitable Gift Annuities and Charitable Remainder Trusts. These are ways in which a donor can donate their money or securities, see some continuous income, a positive taxable event, and also be generous. So bear with me as I sort of generally muse.
If a donor created a gift annuity with, say, the organization I work with, they would get a fixed annuity rate for their life-time, based on their age, and the amount of the gift. If a single donor at age 65 created a CGA with $10,000, they'd receive a 5.7% annuity rate, or $570 annually. They would also be able to claim a deduction of around 50% of the value of the gift, as half of the value of the gift is charitable, and the other half is a benefit to them.
These mechanisms, often regulated like insurance, exist to create incentives to give. If theater, and the arts, is going to see a reduction in direct giving and corporate sponsorship, perhaps similar incentives could be created for landlords and/or renters.
For example, what if a theater owner or operator could donate half of the rental agreement to a producing theater company, effectively cutting the rental costs in half and then claiming the rest of the value of the rental as a tax deduction. That would mean landlords receive guaranteed write-offs, and companies have reduced bills. It would also reduce stress on landlords: even a deadbeat company that had trouble paying wouldn't be a serious problem, as half the value of the rental would be made up in a tax deduction regardless.
What's more, the value of the rental would not be the actual value the space at which the space was rented, but an appraised value of the rental space based on the market. Essentially, their are art appraisers and appraisers of home values: people whose job it is to assess the value of an asset. Rental space, in New York City, is an asset. So... what if a qualified outside appraiser would have to be employed to set a value on the rental space. That way, a company could write off the appraised value of half the rental, even if they discounted the other half for a theater company they believed in. It would work like this:
The appraised rental value of a space: $2000 a week
Donated amount: $1000
Rental price: $1000
Discounted price to the producer's favorite theater company: $800
Which means that even with a discount, the producer would be guaranteed the full other half of the appraised value. In effect, it would create an incentive to rent space inexpensively, effectively a backdoor donation to theater companies by the government, instead of direct grants and subsidies. It would be more useful, because it would affect everyone, instead of the lucky few with the capability to do extensive grantwriting.
Obviously, this doesn't exist. But at some point, neither did many charitable financial incentives.
Suffice to say, there are likely tons of problems with the wisp of smoke "what if" that I'm describing. But isn't it about time that theater caught up with the sophistication of other industries, when it comes to lobbying for tax incentives and its own economic health?
Wait...do we have lobbyists for theater as an industry at the state and federal level? Who can push for this kind of tax legislation? Who can argue for it?
If not...why not?
Over at Device
"11. Is There an Ethics of Comedy? In the Way That There Is an Ethics of Tragedy?
I had a dream last night in which I was giving a radio address on the ethics of comedy. What did I say? I cannot remember."
Find other similar bits of precious whimsy here.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
OOB Venues Study Published
The New York Innovate Theater Foundation has completed a five-year study of Off Off Broadway venues. It's fantastic to see efforts being made to show the real, not anecdotal, behavior of Off-Off Broadway.
You can read the report here.
Some of the highlights:
Quotes from the press release:
"The rate of the erosion of our stages is alarming. Over the last 5 years, we have lost 26% of the Off-Off-Broadway stages in the Midtown area. We have watched a steady decline in the number of productions that are taking place in the "theatre district." Even more disturbing is the fact that of the 30 Off-Off-Broadway houses in the Greenwich Village area, over 25% have already been lost and with the displacement of the theatres from the Archive Building, that percentage increases to 40%" said Shay Gines, Executive Director, New York Innovative Theatre Foundation.
"The research and information contained in this report not only substantiate the numbers needed to help effectively advocate for public policy change as it relates to small non-profit theatre in New York City, but it also creates a clear barometer of the passion and fiery commitment it takes to simply exist in the Off-Off-Broadway world." - David M. Pincus, Chairman, Theater Task Force, Community Board 4
A few things stick out to me.
The first is the localization of Off-Off Broadway around Midtown West. I think a shorthand that I use, and I've heard used, to describe Off-Off is "downtown" theater. Suffice to say, that's got to be revised.
The second is a list of now-defunct Off-Off Broadway spaces.
29th Street Theatre
78th Street Theatre Lab, 2nd floor (scheduled to close in 2009)
78th Street Theatre Lab, 3rd floor
Actors Playhouse
Bowerie Lane Theatre
Chelsea Repertory Company
Collective Unconscious
Creative Place Theatre
Culture Project
Douglas Fairbanks Theatre
Emerging Artists Theatre
Flatiron Theatre (where Blue Coyote Theater Group produced my play The Great Escape, on a personal note)
Greenwich Street Theatre
Grove Street Playhouse
Hinton Battle Dance Laboratory
Intar Theatre
John Houseman - Theatre 1 - OB space
John Houseman - Theatre 2
John Houseman - Theatre 3
Jose Quintero
Michael Weller Theatre
Nat Horne Theatre
New Perspectives Theatre
Oasis Theatre
Pelican Theatre
Perry Street Theatre
Provincetown Playhouse
Sanford Meisner Theatre
Show World Theatre
Studio Dante
The Tank on 42nd Street
Theatre 5
Trilogy Theatre
Village Gate Theatre
Vital Children's Theatre
Where Eagles Dare
And here are, according to the report, theatres currently in danger of eviction
Epiphany Theatre
Interborough Repertory Theater
The Wings Theatre
Theatre for a New Audience - OB space
13th Street Repertory Theatre
Quite a list. That's 36 closed Off Off Broadway venues.
It's also noteworthy to see that 84% of producing companies that responded to the survey note that they "Rent Various Locations" for their performances. 5% of producers responding claimed a permanent home. It shows how rental prices directly affect the community at large, and how the economics of rent are simply a central factor of what is produced Off-Off Broadway.
What do you see in this report? What alarms you? And, more than that, how can we use this information to make a positive change in Off-Off Broadway, and the New York Theater scene as a whole? If you're not from NYC, what here speaks to you from the perspective of your own locale? Are you seeing theater's close?
Let's also remember this: this report was done over the last 5 years. The economy is in dire straits right now. If this has been what's been happening for half a decade, what can we expect under far worse financial conditions?
You can read the report here.
Some of the highlights:
- Over 25% of OOB venues in both the West Village and Midtown area have either been demolished or repurposed into non-performance spaces in the last 5 years
- 43% of all OOB venues are located in the West Side Midtown area of Manhattan
- There has been a sharp decline in the number of OOB productions presenting work in the Theatre District
- The East Village, which only accounts for 14% of the overall OOB venues, is currently presenting 30% of the OOB productions.
Quotes from the press release:
"The rate of the erosion of our stages is alarming. Over the last 5 years, we have lost 26% of the Off-Off-Broadway stages in the Midtown area. We have watched a steady decline in the number of productions that are taking place in the "theatre district." Even more disturbing is the fact that of the 30 Off-Off-Broadway houses in the Greenwich Village area, over 25% have already been lost and with the displacement of the theatres from the Archive Building, that percentage increases to 40%" said Shay Gines, Executive Director, New York Innovative Theatre Foundation.
"The research and information contained in this report not only substantiate the numbers needed to help effectively advocate for public policy change as it relates to small non-profit theatre in New York City, but it also creates a clear barometer of the passion and fiery commitment it takes to simply exist in the Off-Off-Broadway world." - David M. Pincus, Chairman, Theater Task Force, Community Board 4
__
A few things stick out to me.
The first is the localization of Off-Off Broadway around Midtown West. I think a shorthand that I use, and I've heard used, to describe Off-Off is "downtown" theater. Suffice to say, that's got to be revised.
The second is a list of now-defunct Off-Off Broadway spaces.
29th Street Theatre
78th Street Theatre Lab, 2nd floor (scheduled to close in 2009)
78th Street Theatre Lab, 3rd floor
Actors Playhouse
Bowerie Lane Theatre
Chelsea Repertory Company
Collective Unconscious
Creative Place Theatre
Culture Project
Douglas Fairbanks Theatre
Emerging Artists Theatre
Flatiron Theatre (where Blue Coyote Theater Group produced my play The Great Escape, on a personal note)
Greenwich Street Theatre
Grove Street Playhouse
Hinton Battle Dance Laboratory
Intar Theatre
John Houseman - Theatre 1 - OB space
John Houseman - Theatre 2
John Houseman - Theatre 3
Jose Quintero
Michael Weller Theatre
Nat Horne Theatre
New Perspectives Theatre
Oasis Theatre
Pelican Theatre
Perry Street Theatre
Provincetown Playhouse
Sanford Meisner Theatre
Show World Theatre
Studio Dante
The Tank on 42nd Street
Theatre 5
Trilogy Theatre
Village Gate Theatre
Vital Children's Theatre
Where Eagles Dare
And here are, according to the report, theatres currently in danger of eviction
Epiphany Theatre
Interborough Repertory Theater
The Wings Theatre
Theatre for a New Audience - OB space
13th Street Repertory Theatre
Quite a list. That's 36 closed Off Off Broadway venues.
It's also noteworthy to see that 84% of producing companies that responded to the survey note that they "Rent Various Locations" for their performances. 5% of producers responding claimed a permanent home. It shows how rental prices directly affect the community at large, and how the economics of rent are simply a central factor of what is produced Off-Off Broadway.
What do you see in this report? What alarms you? And, more than that, how can we use this information to make a positive change in Off-Off Broadway, and the New York Theater scene as a whole? If you're not from NYC, what here speaks to you from the perspective of your own locale? Are you seeing theater's close?
Let's also remember this: this report was done over the last 5 years. The economy is in dire straits right now. If this has been what's been happening for half a decade, what can we expect under far worse financial conditions?
Over at Phantasmaphile
My cooler-than-a-new-bike girlfriend Pam has a fantastic interview with artist Thomas Woodruff on her blog today.
Question
Would it be fair to call those who opposed Jim Crow laws "intolerant" of white racists?
It's a strange world where those who oppose the codifying of bigotry are called McCarthy-ists.
Is marriage a complex question? No, actually, it isn't. Those who try to parse civil unions and marriages are simply engaging in sleight of hand - the end result of that argument is always the same. The truth is, marriage is a right, same-sex couples should have it, and anything less is prejudicial.
If you disagree with that view...well, you're wrong, but you're welcome to disagree. If you publicly support the financing of a Proposition that would force your prejudicial views on others, you have opened yourself up for public scrutiny.
If you feel persecuted: good. Maybe that will teach you not to take the persecution of others so lightly.
It's a strange world where those who oppose the codifying of bigotry are called McCarthy-ists.
Is marriage a complex question? No, actually, it isn't. Those who try to parse civil unions and marriages are simply engaging in sleight of hand - the end result of that argument is always the same. The truth is, marriage is a right, same-sex couples should have it, and anything less is prejudicial.
If you disagree with that view...well, you're wrong, but you're welcome to disagree. If you publicly support the financing of a Proposition that would force your prejudicial views on others, you have opened yourself up for public scrutiny.
If you feel persecuted: good. Maybe that will teach you not to take the persecution of others so lightly.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
A dirty joke
WARNING: Childish, dirty humor and foul language to follow. For those bored at work, early, on a Wednesday.
A kid walks into a whorehouse dragging a dead frog on a string.
The guy at the front desk says: "Hey kid, what are you doing here?"
The kid looks up and says, "I want a whore."
The guy at the front desk looks at the kid, and his dead frog, and says, "You're, what, 8? No way."
The kid hands the guy a credit card and says, "I want a whore."
The guy at the front desk says, "I think we can arrange something" and takes the card. He turns to run the card through his makeshift credit card machine.
The kids says, "What a minute. I want a whore with syphilis."
The guy at the front desk stops, turns around, and says "We don't let professional woman like ours work if they're... sick. Only clean girls around here."
The kid takes his credit card back, and puts down a gold card. He smiles and says, "With syphilis."
"I'll get Wanda," says the guy at the front desk.
Not long after, the kid is led into a private room. He enters, dragging the dead frog on a string. Awaiting him is Wanda, syphilitic whore.
Ten minutes later, the kid walks out of the room, dragging the dead frog on a string, nods to the guy at the front desk, and heads for the door.
The guy at the front desk can't stand it anymore. "Hey, kid! I have to know. Why are you, at your age, in a whorehouse? Why did you want a whore with syphilis? And why, for fuck's sake, are you dragging that dead frog on a string?"
The kid says,"Ok, here's the deal. I've got syphilis now. I'm going to go home and do my babysitter. She'll get it. Then, my Dad'll drive her home, and he'll do her, and he'll get it. Then, he'll do my Mom, and she'll get it. And she'll do the milkman, and... that's the bastard who KILLED MY FROG!"
A kid walks into a whorehouse dragging a dead frog on a string.
The guy at the front desk says: "Hey kid, what are you doing here?"
The kid looks up and says, "I want a whore."
The guy at the front desk looks at the kid, and his dead frog, and says, "You're, what, 8? No way."
The kid hands the guy a credit card and says, "I want a whore."
The guy at the front desk says, "I think we can arrange something" and takes the card. He turns to run the card through his makeshift credit card machine.
The kids says, "What a minute. I want a whore with syphilis."
The guy at the front desk stops, turns around, and says "We don't let professional woman like ours work if they're... sick. Only clean girls around here."
The kid takes his credit card back, and puts down a gold card. He smiles and says, "With syphilis."
"I'll get Wanda," says the guy at the front desk.
Not long after, the kid is led into a private room. He enters, dragging the dead frog on a string. Awaiting him is Wanda, syphilitic whore.
Ten minutes later, the kid walks out of the room, dragging the dead frog on a string, nods to the guy at the front desk, and heads for the door.
The guy at the front desk can't stand it anymore. "Hey, kid! I have to know. Why are you, at your age, in a whorehouse? Why did you want a whore with syphilis? And why, for fuck's sake, are you dragging that dead frog on a string?"
The kid says,"Ok, here's the deal. I've got syphilis now. I'm going to go home and do my babysitter. She'll get it. Then, my Dad'll drive her home, and he'll do her, and he'll get it. Then, he'll do my Mom, and she'll get it. And she'll do the milkman, and... that's the bastard who KILLED MY FROG!"
Perspective
To quote a recent article in the NY Times...
But to speak of the Goodman as if its a relatively small house is bizarre. It's an institution that's been in existence since 1922. It's a minor quibble with the phrasing, maybe, but it belies blinders about how the majority of theater is made in the US, and under what conditions. Most companies margin of error, financially, is razor thin. I'm hoping we don't see a massive bloodletting as endowments die and corporate sponsors disappear.
To the Goodman, it'll mean fewer and smaller plays. To some companies, like Milwaukee Shakespeare, it will mean the end.
The article also notes that some producers see a possiblity of a creative boom. It's comforting to know that when there's less money to be made, and less security, the producers finally turn to risk. You'd think it would be the other way around. I, for one, am not holding my breath for a large scale festival of emerging works to appear on commerical stages once all the corporate sponsors disappear.
On a smaller stage and with a smaller budget, some nonprofit theaters face similar problems. “These are very challenging times, as difficult as we’ve faced in 40 or 50 years,” said Roche Schulfer, executive director of the Goodman Theater in Chicago. “I’m concerned about institutional funding from corporations and foundations. Over the next couple of years we’ll have to figure out ways to do as much with less, doing smaller productions, for example.”Well... I guess the Goodman counts as smaller than, say, Radio City Music Hall. But the Goodman's balance sheet showed net assets of just under $52 million in their August 2007 annual report. Now, I'm sure that a fair amount of that is property, that their investments aren't performing very well right now, and that corporate sponsors (like American Airlines, Sarah Lee, Kraft Foods and Target) may cut back considerably on contributions. The Goodman, as with many other large non-profits, is about to go through a tough period.
But to speak of the Goodman as if its a relatively small house is bizarre. It's an institution that's been in existence since 1922. It's a minor quibble with the phrasing, maybe, but it belies blinders about how the majority of theater is made in the US, and under what conditions. Most companies margin of error, financially, is razor thin. I'm hoping we don't see a massive bloodletting as endowments die and corporate sponsors disappear.
To the Goodman, it'll mean fewer and smaller plays. To some companies, like Milwaukee Shakespeare, it will mean the end.
The article also notes that some producers see a possiblity of a creative boom. It's comforting to know that when there's less money to be made, and less security, the producers finally turn to risk. You'd think it would be the other way around. I, for one, am not holding my breath for a large scale festival of emerging works to appear on commerical stages once all the corporate sponsors disappear.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Tonight - Revamped
I'll have short piece in tonight's Vampire Cowboy's event Revamped. The theme is 70s Soul.
Should be a fine time. No plans on a Monday? Drop by.
Here are the details.
Tonight at 8:30pm / HERE Arts Center. Tickets are $25.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Non-religious arguments
Just a quick thought:
Isaac posted this provocative question:
What are the non-religious arguments against gay marriage?
It's a fair question, and one worth considering. Here's one you might not have asked yourself lately, though...
What are the religious arguments in favor of gay marriage?
How about a little wisdom from Bishop Gene Robinson:
"When I first started my ministry, divorced people were not welcome at Communion and, if they got remarried, they could not receive the church's blessing. Now, neither of these things is the case.
"Jesus, out of his own mouth, says remarriage is adultery and yet the Church has determined in its own wisdom and by the lead of the spirit that God's leading us to a new place.
"It raises what I think is the real issue here. Did God stop revealing himself at the end of the first century, when the scripture was closed, or did God, as Jesus said he would, send his holy spirit to lead us into truth?"
The fact is, we tend to treat religious arguments as either unwinnable or unworthy of engagement. (That's not what Isaac's doing, by the way, he's simply looking outside the traditional boundaries of the argument.) But I do think that religious thought is not monolithic, and religious thought that praises bigotry is fringe thought, and should be treated as such.
Isaac posted this provocative question:
What are the non-religious arguments against gay marriage?
It's a fair question, and one worth considering. Here's one you might not have asked yourself lately, though...
What are the religious arguments in favor of gay marriage?
How about a little wisdom from Bishop Gene Robinson:
"When I first started my ministry, divorced people were not welcome at Communion and, if they got remarried, they could not receive the church's blessing. Now, neither of these things is the case.
"Jesus, out of his own mouth, says remarriage is adultery and yet the Church has determined in its own wisdom and by the lead of the spirit that God's leading us to a new place.
"It raises what I think is the real issue here. Did God stop revealing himself at the end of the first century, when the scripture was closed, or did God, as Jesus said he would, send his holy spirit to lead us into truth?"
The fact is, we tend to treat religious arguments as either unwinnable or unworthy of engagement. (That's not what Isaac's doing, by the way, he's simply looking outside the traditional boundaries of the argument.) But I do think that religious thought is not monolithic, and religious thought that praises bigotry is fringe thought, and should be treated as such.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
What I don't know
Tony's discussion made me think a bit about what I know, and what I don't, about content and writing.
I do not know if you should begin with a character, or if you should begin with a premise.
I do not know if you should write from a political point of view, or if you should work from a place of ambiguity.
I do not know if you should toss out structure, or if you should choose a structure and slavishly serve it.
I do not know if you should try to ape your heroes, or eradicate them.
I do not know if you should use intermissions, or if you should avoid them.
I do not know if you should write within the context of your peers, or focus on your audience, or imagine an audience, or write as if only you exist.
I do not know if you should create a collage, plan out your play ahead of time, or write off the top of your head.
I couldn't tell you if you should revise ruthlessly, or embrace your messes.
I can't tell if you should work within the frame of genre, or fight it.
I don't know if I would recommend swordfights, a kitchen table, or white robes.
I have no idea if it is harder to be funny or serious.
I don't know if fundamentalism is an absolute evil.
If there are only so many stories to tell, I can't imagine which ones you should be writing.
I don't know how to make a novel into a play, a play into a novel, or to pull a novel out of a play, or put a play into a novel.
I can't tell the difference between a poem and a "language play."
I have no recommendations to make about faith.
I can't tell the difference between David Mamet and David Mamet.
I don't know how to stage Ibsen anymore.
I can't tell you how much school is too much school.
I don't know your motivations; I don't know my motivations.
I don't know if epic plays are better than one-acts.
I don't have any beliefs about tragedy.
I cannot speak to my own experience, because I do not understand myself. And I don't understand your experiences either.
I don't know if you should tell the truth, or lie.
I do not know if I prefer Jung or Freud.
I cannot attest to the importance of songs.
I don't have a rule about sex and violence on-stage.
I don't know the monologue to scene ratio that makes a play work.
I don't have any idea how to achieve the theatrical experiences that I imagined existed when I first fell in love with the theater.
I don't know what you imagined, or what you do imagine.
I cannot interpret dreams accurately.
I don't know how long a play should be.
I don't know how not to repeat myself; but I can't write the same play twice.
I cannot endorse autobiography.
I write what I don't know. I don't know if you should write what you don't know, or do know, or make things up that no one knows.
___
I do not know if you should begin with a character, or if you should begin with a premise.
I do not know if you should write from a political point of view, or if you should work from a place of ambiguity.
I do not know if you should toss out structure, or if you should choose a structure and slavishly serve it.
I do not know if you should try to ape your heroes, or eradicate them.
I do not know if you should use intermissions, or if you should avoid them.
I do not know if you should write within the context of your peers, or focus on your audience, or imagine an audience, or write as if only you exist.
I do not know if you should create a collage, plan out your play ahead of time, or write off the top of your head.
I couldn't tell you if you should revise ruthlessly, or embrace your messes.
I can't tell if you should work within the frame of genre, or fight it.
I don't know if I would recommend swordfights, a kitchen table, or white robes.
I have no idea if it is harder to be funny or serious.
I don't know if fundamentalism is an absolute evil.
If there are only so many stories to tell, I can't imagine which ones you should be writing.
I don't know how to make a novel into a play, a play into a novel, or to pull a novel out of a play, or put a play into a novel.
I can't tell the difference between a poem and a "language play."
I have no recommendations to make about faith.
I can't tell the difference between David Mamet and David Mamet.
I don't know how to stage Ibsen anymore.
I can't tell you how much school is too much school.
I don't know your motivations; I don't know my motivations.
I don't know if epic plays are better than one-acts.
I don't have any beliefs about tragedy.
I cannot speak to my own experience, because I do not understand myself. And I don't understand your experiences either.
I don't know if you should tell the truth, or lie.
I do not know if I prefer Jung or Freud.
I cannot attest to the importance of songs.
I don't have a rule about sex and violence on-stage.
I don't know the monologue to scene ratio that makes a play work.
I don't have any idea how to achieve the theatrical experiences that I imagined existed when I first fell in love with the theater.
I don't know what you imagined, or what you do imagine.
I cannot interpret dreams accurately.
I don't know how long a play should be.
I don't know how not to repeat myself; but I can't write the same play twice.
I cannot endorse autobiography.
I write what I don't know. I don't know if you should write what you don't know, or do know, or make things up that no one knows.
We won this frickin' thing
I would like to direct your attention to this essay at the Huffington Post, written just after the Republican National Convention, by Adam McKay. Just because it makes me feel smug.
Great post over at Storefront Rebellion
Taking up Tony Adam's charge about content.
"Tonight, for the second year in a row, I took in the WTA's Actors' Scene Showcase, in which a bunch of actors, most fresh out of undergrad or grad school and new to the city, perform scenes for casting directors and theater nerds like myself in hopes of getting noticed. Because they're mostly just out of school, they perform stuff by playwrights whose work is currently getting noticed in schools, the ones who are regularly written about in American Theatre and taught in scene study classes: Neil LaBute, Sarah Ruhl, Martin McDonagh. My friend Brooke, a director and playwright herself, pointed out a double-whammy of my favorites: a LaBute scene from Autobahn ("That Neil LaBute just loves women so much") followed by Ruhl's Melancholy Play ("Okay, I get your whimsy thing now.")
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Where you buy and what you buy
Just something I'm curious about...
Do you, dear reader, buy a lot of theater books and published editions of plays? If so, in what way?
Do you primarily buy online, through Amazon or a publisher's website, do you prefer to go to a favorite bookstore? Or some combination of the two?
Also, what prompts you to purchase a play? Have you ever bought a play you weren't very familiar with, simply out of curiosity? Or do you more than likely buy scripts you know to be exceptional and well-regarded plays, like Coast of Utopia or August: Osage County?
I ask this because I've been under the impression that most people buy well-regarded plays, but do so, in keeping with the cheerfully anachronistic lifestyle of most theater practitioners and audiences, at bookstores.
Do you, dear reader, buy a lot of theater books and published editions of plays? If so, in what way?
Do you primarily buy online, through Amazon or a publisher's website, do you prefer to go to a favorite bookstore? Or some combination of the two?
Also, what prompts you to purchase a play? Have you ever bought a play you weren't very familiar with, simply out of curiosity? Or do you more than likely buy scripts you know to be exceptional and well-regarded plays, like Coast of Utopia or August: Osage County?
I ask this because I've been under the impression that most people buy well-regarded plays, but do so, in keeping with the cheerfully anachronistic lifestyle of most theater practitioners and audiences, at bookstores.
Monday, November 10, 2008
A Letter from Martin Denton
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
|
Friday, November 07, 2008
The Most Damaging Wound
The Most Damaging Wound opens tonight. It's a new play by Blair Singer, directed by our pal Mark Armstrong.
Definitely check it out!
Mark posted a series of videos to illuminate us about the show. Take a look.
#1
#2
#3
#4
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Quote
- "I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it."
- Jack Handey, Deep Thoughts
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
The Heroic Imagination
A few months ago, I was listening to a TEDtalks podcast by Philip Zimbardo, psychologist an author of The Lucifer Effect: How Good People Turn Evil. He spoke at length about the worst parts of our human nature, but offered a caveat: the heroic imagination. He spoke of, and speaks of, the central role of the "the heroic imagination" is fostering the best in us. If we see our lives in the context of heroism, if we look for those opportunities to play the role of hero in our own lives, when those opportunities arise, however rarely they may, we seize on them.
Politics can feel decidedly cynical. It can feel systemically broken. It can even feel in the best moments, like a fool's errand. What, we ask ourselves, can we really change? We work our way down into miserable details. We ask what Democrats can do without a "filibuster proof" majority. We look at the overwhelming problems Obama faces in his first term, and raise our eyebrows. It's wonderful that he won, we say to ourselves, but what will he really do?
The truth is...what he's done is win. In doing so, he has created, and lived, the sort of narrative that can change lives. Make no mistake: we all live in a world of storytelling. We tell ourselves the story of our own lives each day; we watch fiction and we watch reality; but we process it all the same way. We see ourselves in the context of something larger, and we connect ourselves to that context.
The story of the last eight years, and even further back, has been one of deep cynicism. We have seen even our favorite politicians sign DOMA and humiliate themselves before the public. We have seen a worst case scenario in the last eight years: a perfect storm of nepotism, cronyism, fundamentalism, authoritarianism and criminality. We have seen our country torture. We have seen our country wage illegal wars. We have allowed our own civil liberties to be fundamentally altered and attacked. We have seen leadership that is beholden to no one. George Bush's only rebuke will be his legacy; he will not be prosecuted, he will not serve jail time. He will, for all he's done, receive far less punishment for his crimes than a young man might for selling pot.
It's the sort of story that makes a person dead, acquiescent.
Barack Obama offers more than policies (although we can hope, as adults, that he'll fulfill his practical promises). He offers a new American story; the sort we had always imagined to be true. He's created a new paradigm of what's possible; not just what's imaginable. And in doing so, he's offered food to the hunger in all all to be heroic. It will, it's my belief, make our children better, our workplaces better, our churches better, our citizenry more trusting of one another, our families stronger, and the world around us a little brighter. Not because in every instance human beings have changed, or because government has suddenly transformed; but because we can tell ourselves a true story and let it inspire us. On a grander scale than was available to us before.
Often, in the arts, we become so embroiled in evidences of human failing, and telling cautionary tales, that we lose the thread of the reason we do this. We don't serve the public by reminding them that they are weak; we serve them by reminding them that they can be strong. We help to define the parameters of human nature outside our immediate experience. We should remember to tell stories about blindness so that we can help people see. It's how we contribute to the public good. We know that has value. That's why the election of Obama has value: it is the sort of story that, in the telling, in the living, makes all of us a little more of who we are, and helps us see who we can be. As individuals, and as a people.
There is no use in denying that people can be bloodthirsty, prejudiced, manipulative, and cruel. There is no denying the proof in history that we can be fooled, torn apart, and made animals. There is now, also, no denying that we can take individual faiths in goodness and turn that into something real. Something that matches the worst of us; and can even suppress or destroy it. There is no denying that we can do right, be good, and change.
It's a good day to be one of the good guys.
Politics can feel decidedly cynical. It can feel systemically broken. It can even feel in the best moments, like a fool's errand. What, we ask ourselves, can we really change? We work our way down into miserable details. We ask what Democrats can do without a "filibuster proof" majority. We look at the overwhelming problems Obama faces in his first term, and raise our eyebrows. It's wonderful that he won, we say to ourselves, but what will he really do?
The truth is...what he's done is win. In doing so, he has created, and lived, the sort of narrative that can change lives. Make no mistake: we all live in a world of storytelling. We tell ourselves the story of our own lives each day; we watch fiction and we watch reality; but we process it all the same way. We see ourselves in the context of something larger, and we connect ourselves to that context.
The story of the last eight years, and even further back, has been one of deep cynicism. We have seen even our favorite politicians sign DOMA and humiliate themselves before the public. We have seen a worst case scenario in the last eight years: a perfect storm of nepotism, cronyism, fundamentalism, authoritarianism and criminality. We have seen our country torture. We have seen our country wage illegal wars. We have allowed our own civil liberties to be fundamentally altered and attacked. We have seen leadership that is beholden to no one. George Bush's only rebuke will be his legacy; he will not be prosecuted, he will not serve jail time. He will, for all he's done, receive far less punishment for his crimes than a young man might for selling pot.
It's the sort of story that makes a person dead, acquiescent.
Barack Obama offers more than policies (although we can hope, as adults, that he'll fulfill his practical promises). He offers a new American story; the sort we had always imagined to be true. He's created a new paradigm of what's possible; not just what's imaginable. And in doing so, he's offered food to the hunger in all all to be heroic. It will, it's my belief, make our children better, our workplaces better, our churches better, our citizenry more trusting of one another, our families stronger, and the world around us a little brighter. Not because in every instance human beings have changed, or because government has suddenly transformed; but because we can tell ourselves a true story and let it inspire us. On a grander scale than was available to us before.
Often, in the arts, we become so embroiled in evidences of human failing, and telling cautionary tales, that we lose the thread of the reason we do this. We don't serve the public by reminding them that they are weak; we serve them by reminding them that they can be strong. We help to define the parameters of human nature outside our immediate experience. We should remember to tell stories about blindness so that we can help people see. It's how we contribute to the public good. We know that has value. That's why the election of Obama has value: it is the sort of story that, in the telling, in the living, makes all of us a little more of who we are, and helps us see who we can be. As individuals, and as a people.
There is no use in denying that people can be bloodthirsty, prejudiced, manipulative, and cruel. There is no denying the proof in history that we can be fooled, torn apart, and made animals. There is now, also, no denying that we can take individual faiths in goodness and turn that into something real. Something that matches the worst of us; and can even suppress or destroy it. There is no denying that we can do right, be good, and change.
It's a good day to be one of the good guys.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Seven Strange Things
I was copied on a meme by Joshua James. Simply put: tell everyone seven strange things about yourself.
Since I'm biting my nails a bit, I'm happy for the distraction. Here goes:
1. I saw Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace in the theater 16 times.
Don't ask about Episodes II and III. Lose respect for me if you want to. It's my life, and it serves me fine.
2. I attended Wrestlemanias X, XIX and XX in person.
Two of them were at Madison Square Garden (X and XX) and XIX was in Seattle. I also attended King of the Ring 1997, for those who give a damn. That was a really terrible show.
3. I played Romeo in a hoopskirt.
Straight out of college, and about 50 lbs ago, I was cast as Romeo with the New Hampshire Shakespeare Festival (now the New England Shakespeare Festival...). This was...1998? The director decided that during the Masquerade, it would be funny if Romeo, Mercutio and Benvolio were ALL in dresses and wigs. So when Juliet and Romeo see each other for the first time...I'm in a dress and wig. During the balcony scene, I had to take my fake boobs out.
It was not the finest hour of the American theater. It was a fun summer though.
4. I went to high school with Steve from Blue's Clues.
Which has forever made children's television strange for me.
5. When I lost my virginity, her mother walked in on us, refused to leave, and made quite a scene about the whole thing.
It was not the finest hour of the American theater. I began to laugh quite a bit.
6. I once had a surprise birthday party where I walked in on all my friends pretending to be dead.
I have a running gag with a few friends about dying in public, being found comically dead, and making sure you get a picture of yourself dead in appropriate places. I have a photo of myself dead on Beckett's grave, for example.
I walked into my home and found all my friends dead in my apartment. It was...fantastic.
7. I was the State Reporter for the Technology Student Association in high school.
No idea how that happened. Just something to do. I was not good at it. Everyone around me could build a motor from a rake. I just made competitive speeches about plastics and won awards.
It's what they mean by "ringer."
Happy Election Day everyone. Chew on this.
I tag... David, Zack, RVCBard, Mike and Johnna.
Since I'm biting my nails a bit, I'm happy for the distraction. Here goes:
1. I saw Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace in the theater 16 times.
Don't ask about Episodes II and III. Lose respect for me if you want to. It's my life, and it serves me fine.
2. I attended Wrestlemanias X, XIX and XX in person.
Two of them were at Madison Square Garden (X and XX) and XIX was in Seattle. I also attended King of the Ring 1997, for those who give a damn. That was a really terrible show.
3. I played Romeo in a hoopskirt.
Straight out of college, and about 50 lbs ago, I was cast as Romeo with the New Hampshire Shakespeare Festival (now the New England Shakespeare Festival...). This was...1998? The director decided that during the Masquerade, it would be funny if Romeo, Mercutio and Benvolio were ALL in dresses and wigs. So when Juliet and Romeo see each other for the first time...I'm in a dress and wig. During the balcony scene, I had to take my fake boobs out.
It was not the finest hour of the American theater. It was a fun summer though.
4. I went to high school with Steve from Blue's Clues.
Which has forever made children's television strange for me.
5. When I lost my virginity, her mother walked in on us, refused to leave, and made quite a scene about the whole thing.
It was not the finest hour of the American theater. I began to laugh quite a bit.
6. I once had a surprise birthday party where I walked in on all my friends pretending to be dead.
I have a running gag with a few friends about dying in public, being found comically dead, and making sure you get a picture of yourself dead in appropriate places. I have a photo of myself dead on Beckett's grave, for example.
I walked into my home and found all my friends dead in my apartment. It was...fantastic.
7. I was the State Reporter for the Technology Student Association in high school.
No idea how that happened. Just something to do. I was not good at it. Everyone around me could build a motor from a rake. I just made competitive speeches about plastics and won awards.
It's what they mean by "ringer."
Happy Election Day everyone. Chew on this.
I tag... David, Zack, RVCBard, Mike and Johnna.
Monday, November 03, 2008
Attention Equity Actors - Showcase Code Reform
Reform of the NY-Showcase Code is an important issue for me, and for the health of NY's theater scene.
Actor Michael Bell is a member of the subcommittee that is reevaluating the New York Showcase Code. This is a moment for you to have your say. Leave a comment there, or e-mail him at showcase - at - michaelbell.net.
The issue of reform of the Showcase Code has been a hot topic on the blogosphere and in NYC. You should check out the League of Independent Theater Producers, and also the ART/NY White Paper on the subject.
Short version: if we want to change the restrictive Showcase Code, we need members of Actor's Equity to make a little noise. We need members of the union to speak on their own behalf to the union, and ask for changes in the code that will allow smaller theaters to grow, provide better opportunities for actors. Playwrights, producers and directors may have opinions, but only the voices of actors count to the union.
So contact Michael and give him some real fuel, real stories, and real appeals. It's an opportunity to make very real change in NYC's theater scene. Positive and exciting change for all of us.
Again...go here and leave a comment, or e-mail.
Here are some articles about the subject:
Village Voice
Backstage.
Don't know the Code? Read it here.
Actor Michael Bell is a member of the subcommittee that is reevaluating the New York Showcase Code. This is a moment for you to have your say. Leave a comment there, or e-mail him at showcase - at - michaelbell.net.
The issue of reform of the Showcase Code has been a hot topic on the blogosphere and in NYC. You should check out the League of Independent Theater Producers, and also the ART/NY White Paper on the subject.
Short version: if we want to change the restrictive Showcase Code, we need members of Actor's Equity to make a little noise. We need members of the union to speak on their own behalf to the union, and ask for changes in the code that will allow smaller theaters to grow, provide better opportunities for actors. Playwrights, producers and directors may have opinions, but only the voices of actors count to the union.
So contact Michael and give him some real fuel, real stories, and real appeals. It's an opportunity to make very real change in NYC's theater scene. Positive and exciting change for all of us.
Again...go here and leave a comment, or e-mail.
Here are some articles about the subject:
Village Voice
Backstage.
Don't know the Code? Read it here.
A little piece of comfort about polling error
Here is a little something about the margin of error that showed Kerry ahead of Bush going into the 2004 election. I'm sure you'll hear someone say "We thought Kerry was ahead too..."
Right. But the polls were incredibly close, and the largest underestimation of Bush's final tally was 55 votes.
The polls would have to be massively inaccurate in favor of McCain this time out. They would have to be around 100 electoral votes off, in favor of McCain, for him to beat current trends. And it's estimated that about a third of the votes in this election are already cast.
Right. But the polls were incredibly close, and the largest underestimation of Bush's final tally was 55 votes.
The polls would have to be massively inaccurate in favor of McCain this time out. They would have to be around 100 electoral votes off, in favor of McCain, for him to beat current trends. And it's estimated that about a third of the votes in this election are already cast.
Half Price Sale on Plays and Playwrights 2002
NYTE is celebrating 10 years of publishing the Plays and Playwrights series. The book in which I am published, the 2002 edition, is being offered half-price through November as a part of that celebration.
Plays include:
THE DEATH OF KING ARTHUR by Matthew Freeman
MATCH by Marc Chun
WOMAN KILLER by Chiori Miyagawa
THE WILD ASS'S SKIN by J. Scott Reynolds
HALO by Ken Urban
SHYNESS IS NICE by Marc Spitz
REALITY by Curtiss I' Cook
THE RESURRECTIONIST by Kate Chell
BUNNY'S LAST NIGHT IN LIMBO by Peter S. Petralia
SUMMERLAND by Brian Thorstenson
Plays include:
THE DEATH OF KING ARTHUR by Matthew Freeman
MATCH by Marc Chun
WOMAN KILLER by Chiori Miyagawa
THE WILD ASS'S SKIN by J. Scott Reynolds
HALO by Ken Urban
SHYNESS IS NICE by Marc Spitz
REALITY by Curtiss I' Cook
THE RESURRECTIONIST by Kate Chell
BUNNY'S LAST NIGHT IN LIMBO by Peter S. Petralia
SUMMERLAND by Brian Thorstenson
Tomorrow
We often say this is the biggest election in our lifetimes. That's true enough. But it could also be one of the defining moments in our history.
I'm exhausted from a very long weekend. I'm don't know if I have a ton of energy to write about politics today. But let me tell you why I'm optimistic.
1. The numbers give it to Obama. Early voting, new registrations, polling, money, air time, responses to the debates; you name it. There's not a numbers game that the Obama team isn't winning.
2. Even the Obama team is trying to scare you. Here's the logic: if we think he's got it won, we won't work for it. So every e-mail I get from MoveOn.org and Barack Obama says "Nervous? Phone bank for Obama!" At this point, Obama's people are promoting doubt in order to keep people active. McCain's people are the one's going "We've still got a chance." Obama's team is saying "Don't be so sure." It's the argument of a confident campaign.
3. The Bradley Effect is bullshit.
4. Sarah Palin is an albatross.
5. The only story the news media has left is "McCain could pull out an upset."
6. Obama has more than double the number of major newspaper endorsements.
That's just a few.
Hope you're spending today with your head on straight and feeling good. Let's hope Obama closes the deal and gets to spend the afternoon on Thursday with his kids.
I'm exhausted from a very long weekend. I'm don't know if I have a ton of energy to write about politics today. But let me tell you why I'm optimistic.
1. The numbers give it to Obama. Early voting, new registrations, polling, money, air time, responses to the debates; you name it. There's not a numbers game that the Obama team isn't winning.
2. Even the Obama team is trying to scare you. Here's the logic: if we think he's got it won, we won't work for it. So every e-mail I get from MoveOn.org and Barack Obama says "Nervous? Phone bank for Obama!" At this point, Obama's people are promoting doubt in order to keep people active. McCain's people are the one's going "We've still got a chance." Obama's team is saying "Don't be so sure." It's the argument of a confident campaign.
3. The Bradley Effect is bullshit.
4. Sarah Palin is an albatross.
5. The only story the news media has left is "McCain could pull out an upset."
6. Obama has more than double the number of major newspaper endorsements.
That's just a few.
Hope you're spending today with your head on straight and feeling good. Let's hope Obama closes the deal and gets to spend the afternoon on Thursday with his kids.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)