Jesus Christ Describes the Universe to Judas

For some reason, Biblical scholars are only interested in the idea that the newly discovered "Gospel of Judas" claims that Judas' betrayal of Christ was a sort of higher calling.

We love self-determination, we're really a culture about Fate. Manifest Destiny. "I did it because God told me." "I was always meant for this." It's like Abraham and Isaac, except no one stops Judas from killing the thing he loves most.

BUT... there is some really fantastically WEIRD stuff in this recent apocrypha. I actually think it's all amazingly batshit brilliant. It's like Revelations meets the Open Center.

To wit:

_______

JESUS TEACHES JUDAS ABOUT COSMOLOGY: THE SPIRIT AND THE SELF-GENERATED

Jesus said, "[Come], that I may teach you about [secrets] no person [has] ever seen. For there exists a great and boundless realm, whose extent no generation of angels has seen, [in which] there is [a] great invisible [Spirit], which no eye of an angel has ever seen, no thought of the heart has ever comprehended, and it was never called by any name.

"And a luminous cloud appeared there. He said, ‘Let an angel come into being as my attendant.’

"A great angel, the enlightened divine Self-Generated, emerged from the cloud. Because of him, four other angels came into being from another cloud, and they became attendants for the angelic Self-Generated.

The Self-Generated said, [48] ‘Let […] come into being […],’ and it came into being […]. And he [created] the first luminary to reign over him.

He said, ‘Let angels come into being to serve [him],’ and myriads without number came into being. He said, ‘[Let] an enlightened aeon come into being,’ and he came into being. He created the second luminary [to] reign over him, together with myriads of angels without number, to offer service.

That is how he created the rest of the enlightened aeons. He made them reign over them, and he created for them myriads of angels without number, to assist them.

ADAMAS AND THE LUMINARIES

"Adamas was in the first luminous cloud that no angel has ever seen among all those called ‘God.’ He [49] […] that […] the image […] and after the likeness of [this] angel. He made the incorruptible [generation] of Seth appear […] the twelve […] the twenty- four […]. He made seventy-two luminaries appear in the incorruptible generation, in accordance with the will of the Spirit. The seventy-two luminaries themselves made three hundred sixty luminaries appear in the incorruptible generation, in accordance with the will of the Spirit, that their number should be five for each. "The twelve aeons of the twelve luminaries constitute their father, with six heavens for each aeon, so that there are seventy-two heavens for the seventy-two luminaries, and for each [50] [of them five] firmaments, [for a total of] three hundred sixty [firmaments …]. They were given authority and a [great] host of angels [without number], for glory and adoration, [and after that also] virgin spirits, for glory and [adoration] of all the aeons and the heavens and their firmaments.


THE COSMOS, CHAOS, AND THE UNDERWORLD

"The multitude of those immortals is called the cosmos— that is, perdition—by the Father and the seventy-two luminaries who are with the Self-Generated and his seventy- two aeons. In him the first human appeared with his incorruptible powers. And the aeon that appeared with his generation, the aeon in whom are the cloud of knowledge and the angel, is called [51] El. […] aeon […] after that […] said, ‘Let twelve angels come into being [to] rule over chaos and the [underworld].’ And look, from the cloud there appeared an [angel] whose face flashed with fire and whose appearance was defiled with blood. His name was Nebro, which means ‘rebel’; others call him Yaldabaoth. Another angel, Saklas, also came from the cloud. So Nebro created six angels—as well as Saklas—to be assistants, and these produced twelve angels in the heavens, with each one receiving a portion in the heavens.

THE RULERS AND ANGELS

"The twelve rulers spoke with the twelve angels: ‘Let each of you [52] […] and let them […] generation [—one line lost—] angels’:

The first is [S]eth, who is called Christ.
The [second] is Harmathoth, who is […].
The [third] is Galila.
The fourth is Yobel.

These are the five who ruled over the underworld, and first of all over chaos.

THE CREATION OF HUMANITY

"Then Saklas said to his angels, ‘Let us create a human being after the likeness and after the image.’ They fashioned Adam and his wife Eve, who is called, in the cloud, Zoe. For by this name all the generations seek the man, and each of them calls the woman by these names. Now, Sakla did not [53] com[mand …] except […] the gene[rations …] this […]. And the [ruler] said to Adam, ‘You shall live long, with your children.’"


JUDAS ASKS ABOUT THE DESTINY OF ADAM AND HUMANITY

Judas said to Jesus, "[What] is the long duration of time that the human being will live?" Jesus said, "Why are you wondering about this, that Adam, with his generation, has lived his span of life in the place where he has received his kingdom, with longevity with his ruler?" Judas said to Jesus, "Does the human spirit die?" Jesus said, "This is why God ordered Michael to give the spirits of people to them as a loan, so that they might offer service, but the Great One ordered Gabriel to grant spirits to the great generation with no ruler over it—that is, the spirit and the soul. Therefore, the [rest] of the souls [54] [—one line missing—].


JESUS DISCUSSES THE DESTRUCTION OF THE WICKED WITH JUDAS AND OTHERS

"[…] light [—nearly two lines missing—] around […] let […] spirit [that is] within you dwell in this [flesh] among the generations of angels. But God caused knowledge to be [given] to Adam and those with him, so that the kings of chaos and the underworld might not lord it over them." Judas said to Jesus, "So what will those generations do?" Jesus said, "Truly I say to you, for all of them the stars bring matters to completion. When Saklas completes the span of time assigned for him, their first star will appear with the generations, and they will finish what they said they would do. Then they will fornicate in my name and slay their children [55] and they will […] and [—about six and a half lines missing—] my name, and he will […] your star over the [thir]teenth aeon."

After that Jesus [laughed]. [Judas said], "Master, [why are you laughing at us]?"

[Jesus] answered [and said], "I am not laughing [at you] but at the error of the stars, because these six stars wander about with these five combatants, and they all will be destroyed along with their creatures."

_______

Holy...shit. I love how the lines that are missing are all sort of "perfect." A screenwriter couldn't do it better. "I have given you the key to heaven and it can be found in [two lines missing] under the [five words missing.]"

I love the end.

"Master why are you laughing at us?"

A New Manifesto

In keeping with ubiquitous and viral manifesto urge, I hereby give up the Manifesto D'Amour Theatrico. It is a statement of not only belief, but what should be believed.

This is scraps of the manifesto that I found in the pages of the unwritten manuscript of Claude Zednophone, before he was put into a sanitarium for being "too good at challenging the audience."

MANIFESTO D'AMOUR THEATRICO

The Theatre (or "Theater" or "theatre" or "theater") is a cunning snake, perhaps a hydra, without arms, like all snakes, but with many heads, which really makes it a hydra. It is a cunning hydra therefore and not a snake at all. Or, if you will, it is not what we say it is, but it is what we see, for we are only observers on the great stage of snakes.

Nonetheless, Theatre is subtle, deadly, multi-faceted but also no lucrative. It is, at best, a pyramid scheme. Think about what happened to the people who built the pyramids, and then think about the Theatre. Oh yes, I use the capital T.

Hereby, by the power invested in me by paperless publication, I say that Theatre must, like a hydra, shed the skin of its many heads, learn to accept the begging bowl as its true symbol, and build itself a pyramid of semi-heirarchical socialist design. It must become D'Amour Theatrico... the Theatre of Love.

1

Love is the air we breathe and the blood that runs in our veins. If we want Theatre to be like love, we must have a D'Amour Theatrico. It is so easy to write absurdist political diatribes, rife with the dreadful irony and ennui of our time; or write rich multicultural analyses, couched in exciting new ways to view narrative. This is the stuff of the innocent child, playing with a spade and a bucket in the sand. LOVE is hard to write about. That is why we should do it, over and over. Love, after all...what is it?

Think about it. Really.

2

The stages of contemporary Theatre (or as one might say "theatre") are overloaded with scenery and costumes, unless they cannot be afforded. D'Amour Theatrico rids us of this concern by placing all actors on-stage with only what God (or the Goddess, or the Great Spirit, or happenstance) gave them. They will be free to express Love, because when a naked person appears to be full of ennui, it is hard to take them seriously. Also, it will sell tickets and is economical.

Costumes gone? So are the sets. Because D'Amour Theatrico is suspicious of sets. They are unruly and often made with rusty nails.

3

The text vs movement dichotomy in contemporary "theater" has proven insurmountable to most practioners of this bastard art. This is because it's hard to talk and move with all the sincerity of ones heart and soul. Universities and training programs for "actors" often feed them things like breathing, vocal exercises, scene analysis. Directors are taught blocking and how to get actors to say things as if they thought of them themselves. This creates the delusion that either of these two creative forces, on their own, know anything about the all-powerful hydra of Love that is D'Amour Theatrico. I assure you, without this manifesto, Directors and Actors are bases in the woods, being offered so many fruits from the trees of knowledge that they will be thrown out of every Garden of Eden known to Christendom (Or "whathaveyou-dom.")

To practice, with accuracy and grace, D'Amour Theatrico, one must not move unless one is moved to move. And once one moves, one must not cease movement until moved to not move. Movement comes from movement. There's a physicist that supports this. No! A pataphysical parabasicist.

D'Amour Theatrico is all about movements, but if those movements are not born of Love, they are the movements of Hate. And we hate hate more than we love love.

4

Art, by its very nature, is a big, dirty lie that we are told from the time we are very young. It is undefinable, a turncoat, a traitor to the faith of its followers, and it gives nothing in return for years of painstaking work. We've all had relationships like this. Hence: D'Amour Theatrico.

5

May one say that Theatre (Capital T) is being used as the chewtoy of immortal film and instantly gratifying television? May one pose that Theatre is often begging for a dog biscuit at the door of men like the Weinsteins? When film stars come to the New York stages (like Julia Roberts) do we not treat them like kings and queens for their charity? And is not, in biblical translation, the word Charity not Interchangeable with the word Love?

Hence, when they come down from their towers made of heavenly chocolate and butter that never makes you fat, when they open the massive bejeweled doors to their fortified castles and say "I Feel Like Doing A Play"... is this not an act of Love?

D'Amour Theatrico encourages phone calls from agents who think it's time to lend their stars to something "legit." Just to keep it fresh, you know? For the papers.

6

Without Love, you are a Goat. So stay away from Edward Albee. D'Amour Theatrico will be close to him because no practioner of D'Amour Theatrico, naked and moving at top speed, could be mistaken for a Goat. We embrace Albee, and not Goats. Unless we are missing the point entirely, which is possible, because we are not paying attention. We are FEELING, not thinking.

7

D'Amour Theatrico solves the problem of leadership. Together, the actors and director and perhaps writer come together and read "the text," or whatever else they might find interesting. This is not judged. Judgment is so not D'Amour Theatrico. They come together, not at a predetermined time, but when they happen to meet. Often, it could be, that a troupe will meet because they all share the same apartment. That works well, and makes workspace less expensive.

Then, as the spirit moves them, they remove all distance between themselves and their fellow actors. To facilitate this, have only one small couch. As you read, enjoy the sound of one another's voice. Try to imitate that voice, but not in a mocking way. If one of the actors reads the contents of a cereal box with a slightly Long Island accent, do the same. Let it become all accents. Follow the moment. Love the beauty of working intuitively.

All this time, you may think, is this something like being a hydra? Precisely. Which head is the leader? None. But they all hiss and shed their skin and have no arms. Now, at least, you can be exactly like this, as a team. Also, you can move and breathe and be naked. It is art people, not science.

Because of the relatively minimal principles, it is important to not use a stage manager. They make a mess of all impulses, and insist on things like promptness and a call sheet. The Stage Manager is the bane of Theatre with a capital "T." D'Amour Theatrico is a big picture kind of snake. It does not like all this "what time is it?" crap.

8

Make sure that one member of your troupe can afford to rent a theater.

9

Finally, read some Joseph Campbell and then Howard Zinn. That will make you worry only about your own personal journey AND make you feel a part of a collective of poor, downtrodden people who cannot get out from under the thumb of the cruel rich. Internalize both impulses. Then, start moving without clothes on. Do this with as many people as you can find.


_____

And with that, I leave you under cover of darkness.

Tiny Kitchen

Last night after the reading, over drinks, I was made aware of this webpage, Tales from a Tiny Kitchen.

Read it religiously. Forever.

A brief flurry of snow on this warm April 5th

This is what we call "Judgment Weather"...in the business.

Why I'd Vote For Eliot Ness, er, Spitzer

Is right here.

Get 'em Spitzer.

Reading on Wednesday... Be There Or Be Square

If you're free on Wednedsday night at 7pm, a mentor and friend of mine, David Valdes-Greenwood, is having his new play "Constant" read as a part of the First Light 2006 series at the Ensemble Studio Theater. Link is above for information.

David has a book about his marriage coming out in February 2007; and his work was seen in last year's Humana Festival. He's brilliant... I'll be there with some friends. Come to the reading, say Hi to David and Me too. Then, we'll all have a beer.

From the "it's a small world" department...this reading is directed by RJ Tolan, who also directed John Devore's "Total Faith in Cosmic Love."

Speaking Truthfully, Speaking Artfully

Recently reading Boo's blog... it occurred to me that it can be hard to make the distinction between theatre that speaks with raw honesty, and theatre that is artfully created and expressed.

I actually don't think this is a matter of preference... I think we encourage each other to speak with raw honesty, and then prefer the artful in practice. But that's, like everything, just off the top of my head.

Speaking truthfully and speaking artfully are not, automatically, the same thing (as I said in Boo's comments section).

Should they be separated?

Are they inevitably so?

Is art too coy and dry without the 'honesty?'

Or is honesty sometimes just another word for self-indulgence, and the only true art found in the 'craft?' Do we need to say something we believe in to create something truly beautiful?

Oh, and for the record...I have no idea.

I just know that I went to an acting school that encouraged quite a few of us to breathe and express the fire in our bellies and it made Pinter quite impossible to perform. I did, though, once tear up from hyperventillation.

I was praised for my honesty. That was many moons ago.

These might seem like rudimentary questions...but as they say

"The old questions, the old answers...there's nothing like them!"

What is this difference between expressing your feelings without any self-awareness and making good art? Is there a difference?

My comments section is yours.

For your weekends... from The Makers of "Lost"

I leave you with this amazing, beautiful little new icon of pop culture, decoded by way of a thousand geeks with TiVo and BitTorrent and Ipods and strange liberal arts degrees.

Enjoy.

(Dave, don't click this. It will ruin the Episode for You.)

Also, it seems like there is some discussion about a documentary being made of the process of casting to production of "The Most Wonderful Love." This makes me...nervousexcited.

Immigration

Will someone explain what our current immigration policy is doing so badly?

Total Faith in Cosmic Love

Just a quick note to say I saw John Devore's "Total Faith in Cosmic Love" at the Brick last weekend, and it features two top-notch performances and a heartfelt, hilarious script. You'd never guess that John Devore would channel a dirty mouthed Cameron Crowe so beautifully. I'm talking Singles-Crowe, not Vanilla Sky Crowe.

I heartily recommend it. 10 bucks at the door, plus a few drinks and free pizza at the Alligator Lounge afterwards? Can't go wrong.

Back on the Bus Y'All

Yes, that was an Indigo Girls reference.

Well, the second draft of "The Most Wonderful Love" is finished, the director and I are discussing if we can actually cast a real eleven year old to be called a "twat" on-stage (I hope so), Jack Abramhoff is going to prison, Iraq's civil war is making fools of us all, and there's a new LOST on tonight.

And I think to myself, what a wonderful world!

So tell me something, readers...here, just a week or so past the Vernal Equinox...what makes you so happy you could just spit?

Mouse Nuts

Mouse Nuts to the (ethical) rescue!

Calling South Dakota

This is funny.

Thanks Phantasmaphile.

You're pretty and excellent and making decisions.

Silver, Cote and Bradbury

Two of the more powerhouse bloggers, George and Isaac, rewarded readers with some wonderful surprises today.

At Superfluities, Nicky Silver makes an appearance here.

On Parabasis, Isaac posts part one of his interview with Time Out Theater Editor David Cote here.

As for me, I'd like to add something I just posted on Superfluities in my own space. This is from Ray Bradbury, concerning those who would change or edit his work in order to suit their own needs. (I believe the impetus was his works being edited for the classroom.) I've always found it inspiring...a raw statement of individualism and purpose:

"For it is a mad world and it will get madder if we allow the minorities, be they dwarf or giant, orangutan or dolphin, nuclear-head or water-conversationalist, pro-computerologist or Neo-Luddite, simpleton or sage, to interfere with aesthetics. The real world is the playing ground for each and every group, to make or unmake laws. But the tip of the nose of my book or stories or poems is where their rights and my territorial imperatives begin, run and rule. If Mormons do not like my plays, let them write their own. If the Irish hate my Dublin stories, let them rent typewriters. If teachers and grammar school editors find my jawbreaker sentences shatter their mushmild teeth, let them eat stale cake dunked in weak tea of their own ungodly manufacture. If the Chicano intellectuals wish to re-cut my "Wonderful Ice Cream Suit" so it shapes "Zoot," may the belt unravel and the pants fall.

For, let's face it, digression is the soul of wit. Take the philosophic asides away from Dante, Milton or Hamlet's father's ghost and what stays is dry bones. Laurence Sterne said it once: Digressions, incontestably, are the sunshine, the life, the soul of reading! Take them out and one cold eternal winter would reign in every page. Restore them to the writer - he steps forth like a bridegroom, bids them all-hail, brings in variety and forbids the appetite to fail.

In sum, do not insult me with the beheadings, finger-choppings or the lung-deflations you plan for my works. I need my head to shake or nod, my hand to wave or make into a fist, my lungs to shout or whisper with. I will not go gently onto a shelf, degutted, to become a non-book.

All you umpires, back to the bleachers. Referees, hit the showers. It's my game. I pitch, I hit, I catch. I run the bases. At sunset I've won or lost. At sunrise, I'm out again, giving it the old try.

And no one can help me. Not even you." - Ray Bradbury

Meet the New Boss...Same As The Old Boss

Hey everyone...I'm interrupting this hiatus to show you a little bit of one of that carpetbagger Bush's latest "Defend this Unjustifiable Undeclared, Illegal War" speech. This is just the very end of the speech he delivered yesterday. You'll note that second term Bush sounds remarkably like Bush on his first day of work.

I will never be worn down by this I swear on my grave. I will mock him until he is only a name on a Library in Texas that only has subscriptions to Hunting Magazines.

Comments are in red:

"The last three years have tested our resolve. The fighting has been tough. The enemy we face has proved to be brutal and relentless. We're adapting our approach to reflect the hard realities on the ground. And the sacrifices being made by our young men and women who wear our uniform has been heartening and inspiring. "

We enter the fourth year of the war, and we are now adjusting our approach. Oh shit! He's going to start handing out armor to our troops. No more fighting with both hands tied behind our backs? Bring it on!

"The terrorists who are setting off bombs in mosques and markets in Iraq share the same hateful ideology as the terrorists who attacked us on September the 11, 2001, those who blew up the commuters in London and Madrid, and those who murdered tourists in Bali or workers in Riyadh or guests at a wedding in Amman."

If by "ideology" you mean, blow stuff up to scare people and defeat your enemy, yeah. They do. Of course, we also have that particular ideology. I remember reading about two guys named Fat Man and Little Boy who visited Japan.

I also love that he spells out the entire "September 11th, 2001" as if when he says September we think he might mention September 23rd or September 9th.

"In the war on terror, we face a global enemy. And if we were not fighting this enemy in Iraq, they would not be idle. They would be plotting and trying to kill Americans across the world and within our own borders. "

Right. Because since we started fighting them in Iraq, they've totally been sucked into it and we've got them fooled. Denmark is peaceful, London was not bombed by someone other than the IRA, Madrid is perfectly fine. Pay not attention to that man behind the curtain.

"Against this enemy there can be no compromise. So we will fight them in Iraq, we will fight them across the world, and we will stay in the fight until the fight is won."

Hear that Iran? Across the world, you Muslim Republicans. We still have a few young men who crossed over into fighting age since we started in Iraq. So we're far from all dead at this point.

"In the long run, the best way to defeat this enemy and to assure the security of our own citizens is to spread the hope of freedom across the broader Middle East. We've seen freedom conquer evil and secure the peace before.

In World War II, free nations came together to fight the ideology of fascism, and freedom prevailed. And today Germany and Japan are democracies, and they are allies in securing the peace. "

Ah, World War II, you old softie. Where would justifications for war be without you? I mean, heck the minute we heard about Hitler hurting people, we hopped in airplanes and beat up those Nazi jerks.

Well...ok. Not right away. But we did it, and that's what counts.

Iraq is just like that.

"In the Cold War, freedom defeated the ideology of communism and led to a democratic movement that freed the nations of Central and Eastern Europe from Soviet domination. And today these nations are strong allies in the war on terror. "

Yeah...Serbia is in fantastic fucking shape. Also, I didn't know we were now calling Blue Jeans and Cheeseburgers by the moniker Freedom. It's catchy.

"In the Middle East, freedom is once again contending with an ideology that seeks to sew anger and hatred and despair. And like fascism and communism before, the hateful ideologies that use terror will be defeated."

Bush saying fascism is a defeated ideology is like a fat kid saying chocolate cake tastes like shit.

Think about it.

"Freedom will prevail in Iraq. Freedom will prevail in the Middle East."

Replace Freedom with the Word Guns in the first sentence and illegal torture in the second. These are nouns you can sink your teeth into. Freshman Comp.

"And as the hope of freedom spreads to nations that have not known it, these countries will become allies in the cause of peace. "

You know, hard to argue there. This line of thinking has a fantastic track record.

"The security of our country is directly linked to the liberty of the Iraqi people, and we will settle for nothing less than victory."

Does that mean it's like in the Dark Crystal...where the bad guys would explode and a corresponding good guy would also explode, because they were good and bad halves of a being that was separated from itself?

I know what you're thinking about me. You think I have a ponytail.

Furthermore...right now, we'll settle for less. We'd settle for the UN to pass a measure telling us we can go home and they'll handle the rest. If England said "Everyone in the US gets one big shiny tank of cheap gas to end the war" there would be lines across the Atlantic.

"Victory will come when the terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten Iraq's democracy, when the Iraqi security forces can provide for the safety of their citizens on their own, and when Iraq is not a safe haven for terrorists to plot new attacks against our nation. "

What's amazing is that we can do none of these things with our OWN country. Terrorists threaten us, we can't provide safety for our own citizens, and most of the cells that plotted 9/11 were, as far as we know, inside our borders during planning.

It's sort of like any shitty mentor. Sure, your big brother can smoke pot and drive the car into a tree, but if you YOU do it, he'll beat the living fuck out of you.

Side note: He is still using the term Saddamists.

"There will be more days of sacrifice and tough fighting before the victory is achieved. Yet by helping the Iraqis defeat the terrorists in their land, we bring greater security to our own.

As we make progress toward victory, Iraqis will continue to take more responsibility for their own security and fewer U.S. forces will be needed to complete the mission. "

Right. So how many troops do the Sunnis need to defeat the Shiites? And are we going to wear Gray or Blue?

"But it's important for the Iraqis to hear this: The United States will not abandon Iraq. We will not leave that country to the terrorists who attacked America and want to attack us again. We will leave Iraq, but when we do, it will be from a position of strength, not weakness."

I'm sure Iraqis are happy to hear this. They're thinking how reassuring it is that we won't let them be hurt by people who fly airplanes into buildings. We will protect Iraq from Saudi Arabia with our last...breath.

"Americans have never retreated in the face of thugs and assassins, and we will not begin now."

People in glass houses...

"Thanks for listening. "

He did, in fact, end with that. It's a step up from God Bless Everyone. But it's sort of sheepish rhetoric.

You're welcome, you son of a bitch.

-----

Here endeth the fun times.

Hiatus

Scanning over Dan Trujillo and George Hunka's posts today, and reading my own bullshit from a few days ago, it occurs to me that the act of actually writing a play is so divorced from what I'm reading and saying myself... that it's probably unhealthy and unuseful for me to be reading and blogging about it.

I'll be back when I feel like I'm done with my work (which includes work for this guy.) I might show up in some comments sections, but in the meantime, I'm off. If only for a little while.

If anyone would like to use this space for a discussion, here's one to grow on:

It's impossible to be rid of influence, and the search for the truly 'original' voice is just an exercise in self-consciousness.

Enjoy.

They Are Just Like Us by Collaboration Town

I like these crazy kids.

Wait for it...wait for it...

Goseetheirnewshow!

The New Play

Slated for a June production with this crew, I'm still finishing up my new play "The Most Wonderful Love." And as this medium is a lot about opinion and process and a look into the world of the theatrical (and, for me, a chance to just say things in a public forum that I couldn't otherwise) I think I'll take another few moments to talk about where I am in my process, what the pitfalls have been, what the solutions have been, who has helped, what's still frustrating me, and what I see for this script. Hopefully, others will find it in some way inspiring or useful for their own creative process.

This play was never intended to be what it is. I'd had a bit of a dry spell and so I decided to write down just a few characters talking, and throw in some arbitrary "bag of tricks" plot devices, just to get myself writing. It was about a 15 page beginning of nothing, just characters in a farce. Mother and Father (that's their names) are having breakfast. They talk. They say weird, funny things. They have a daughter named Lill, who is a homeschooled arch-conservative with an absurd and impossible disease. Hilarious. There was a bit about a mysterious letter and a red dress. That's about it. I threw in the plot devices as placeholder, to give me something to write about.

The glorious thing about tried and true plot devices is that they come from a tradition that is undeniably effective. False ones, arbitrary ones, they still work, at least to get things moving. A mysterious letter sparks instantly questions like "Who received it?" "Who sent it?" "What does it say?" The stuff of narrative, clunky, for certain, but all narrative is construction, anyhow. "The red dress" is another, because if it's significant, you have both the color and form to deal with. "Why red?" "Why a dress?" "Who is wearing it and where are they wearing it to?" "Is it an old dress, or a new dress?" See? Instant drama.

One of the most engaging things about the alchemy of playwrighting is that it's a mixture of overplanning, happenstance and symbols. Since no one knows (unless you make it clear, like I am) what is abirtrary and what is coming from some deep meaning for the writer, readers and onlookers, for the most part, give you the benefit of the doubt. They want to believe that these things have a meaning that will add up to something and you, as the writer, want the same thing. It could be said that nothing is entirely abirtrary, for example. What you choose seemingly without forethought is often informed by something else you've experienced or taken note of. I always loved the use of color as instant meaning in the story of Bluebeard, and that's probably why I threw in the red dress.

Now, months (almost a year?) after that first 15 or so page ditty came out of my scrappy Dell laptop with the old ashes from when I smoked still caked under the keys, I've got an 150 page, three act comedy, with about 12 or so characters, that I'm trying to cut down to size, make sense of, give meaning to, and believe in.

I love the play, for its humor and it's characters and it's central images, but I'm still baffled by it. I am, to this day, struggling to decide what it is about. I think I've come to some conclusion about it; that it's about what marriage is, and what it used to be, and how that meaning has changed, but all that is not in the draft expressly yet. That's intention. And intention is only as useful as what it produces.

Often, you'll hear about artists' statements (I've talked about this with Foreman, and its prevalent in contemporary art) and I'm not a believer in it personally. The play's meaning and success lies only between the production and the observers. So in a sense, all the writing I do is an attempt to navigate that space. The space between what the audience will experience and what I want them to see. That navigation is frought with issues that are unique to art...because making overt messages is viewed as a sort of incompetence. You don't want to be didactic or to make the "messages" so clear that they are written on a chalk board. On the other hand, you do not what to be lost in a maze of your own meaning entirely, leaving the audience to its own devices. It is an attempt to communicate, like all art, but one that places barriers between making direct contact. They say "show, don't tell." What many people often overlook is that this is a much more tricky tightrope walk than three little words can encapsulate.

In the midst of this issue (how to say it without saying it, how to have meaning while leaving the audience their own percpetions) is the idea that I do, in fact, like the humor of the play. A great deal. And the play can't be divorced from that humor. So as I'm sitting here, reworking scenes and trying to negotiate plot points and ambiguities, I'm attempting to make sure that how things are said match the style of the play, the truth of each characters voice, while making sure that the play contains things like coherence and a line from the start to the finish.

Of course, I also need to know when to throw things that are traditional away entirely. And that is it's own little trick.

One thing I'll say, is that I'm enjoying the sort of broad style of the play, how the characters let loose, say some dreadfully funny things and are all remarkably fucked up and sad and hilarious. At least to me. If I didn't think so, I probably wouldn't bother to write it. Wonderful not to be an elected official or journalist: I'm absolutely allowed my bias.

The more technical things can be easily constructed as a list of notes you might find after a staged reading with a talkback:

• Act II needs to be shorter
• Too much time spent with characters that aren't intrinsic to the plot
• How does [character x] know about [plot point y] if [character z] didn't tell her?
• When does this realization happen?
• This beat seems clunky and needs to be reworded.
• Should this character enter before or after another character?
• Do we need two songs in Act III?
• Who gets to write the music for the songs?
• Should I write that they "get a glass of water?" Running tap water onstage is a bitch.
• Define the motivations of Jessica, or Lill, or Father Comeuppance
• This monologue is funny, and it's my favorite thing in the play...but do we really need it?

Well, I think that's maybe 1/20th of the list.

Never did take a playwrighting class. I think every day is one.

Here endeth my little internal monologue, at least for the evening. I'll be writing about this process, in more detail and specificity, through the coming weeks.

Artist Interview - Christopher Mir

Check out Phantasmaphile for her interview with artist Christopher Mir. Great stuff.

In Private/In Public

This calling out of Tony Kushner is irresponsible. Kushner is a private citizen, not an elected official. He has no obligation to go "on the record."

This is a vague threat, I feel:

"At some point we'll just have to assume he supports NYTW's action. Or, perhaps worse, is suddenly indifferent to free speech in the theatre. And to open discussion of the Middle East(!)."

None of these assumptions need to be made, for any reason.

That's my last word on the "Rachel Corrie" issue, folks. Let's just remember we're here to help and talk about something we love, not hunt people down or drag people into a fight.

Rachel Corrie question

I guess for me, it all comes down to one question:

What is the best case scenario for the upcoming discussions regarding My Name Is Rachel Corrie? Accepting that no one can go back in time and change what's happened so far... if you woke up tomorrow and read something about this in the Newspaper, what do you want? NYTW to produce it? Someone else to produce it? An apology from Nicola? The Jewish Defamation League demanding the play be seen? Every blogger gets a free copy of her diaries?

What is it that we're after?

The saga of Rachel Corrie

The main places to find the continuing and ever widening blog-orgy about Rachel Corrie are Playgoer (leading the charge); Superfluities and Parabasis. I bowed out rather early.

It's my view, though, on a very basic level, that the issue here has been overstated by very interested parties. Producers are calling each other liars. Israels military actions are being discussed. People are throwing around that deadly word censorship. Over beer with a few bloggers (lovely gents, both) I heard one of them say that the New York Theater Workshop has "given up the moral high ground." And even today, I'm wondering if the story hasn't become the story. And if anyone really knows what they feel the desired result is. Is it an end unto itself to take the "moral high ground?" Or do we want the New York Theater Workshop to scream mea culpa in the streets?

What are we angry about? Is it that NYTW bowed to political pressures? If so, then they claim to have gone out and looked for those pressures. Are we upset that they didn't hold up their end of the deal with Alan Rickman (who we all like to watch in movies)? Is it because the Royal Court seems to be calling the NYTW dishonest? If we're shocked that a theater producer pulled out of an obligation and doesn't entirely explain itself for it, we're living in a fantasyland.

I'm curious how many people have read the play. I certainly haven't. I also don't have personal connections that the New York Theater Workshop like Jason Grote does, so I have no inside information about this, nothing to add but my own anger, which just isn't there. This play will certainly be seen in NYC eventually, it will make more money than it would have otherwise (due to the contraversy) and someone will write a letter to the editor about it. If NYTW was smart, they'd change their minds right now and let the contraversy sell tickets.

The fact is, not producing a play that has a particular political subject matter is weak. But it is incredibly common. That is because our "not-for-profit" theaters are beholden to Board Members, audience interest, ticket and subscription sales...money. They are not funded like theaters in London, and therefore can get cold feet due to market and world forces.

The problem is not that the NYTW wants to shut down discussion about Israel and Palestine. The problem is, why is it worried about this? More than likely, the decision was financial.

That's the boring part. We can cry censorship all we like, but I think that Rachel Corrie's literary martyrdom is doing her message more good than if they play had just gone up next year, or or if it was being performed, right now, to your standard battery of reviews. Perhaps (here's a thought) the decision makers at the NYTW want the play to undergo some changes, or they don't feel strongly about it for quality reasons/content reasons but they didn't want to burn a bridge by saying so publicly. It could be as simple as that. Yet again, we don't know.

Maybe I'm lukewarm about this issue because I find the politics of the play a bit unsettling and I'm not sobbing that a play that puts a upper class white teenage girl from Washington State in front of an Israeli bulldozer isn't being used as propoganda in NY.

Or maybe I'm lukewarm because I feel like this is simply a function of an art that needs funding in order to make more independent artistic decisions.

Or maybe I feel a bit like an internal struggle at the New York Theater Workshop about a play I've never read has been latched onto and exploited on the blogosphere, to attack and cajole and shame producers I've never met, who made a decision I don't know the details about.

I don't feel this is censorship, it's much more complex than that. As I said on Superfluities, I feel like using the word censorship here is like using a sword to perform major surgery.

The rambling conclusion to this rambling essay is: Let's think for a minute. It's easy to become the mob. I think it's better to look for a solution. What do we want from this outcry, beyond just a chance to cry foul?

Total Faith in Cosmic Love

Come watch John Devore put his money where his big, lying mouth is.

GO SEE IT!

The description makes this litany of promises:

Sleeping with the boss. Karaoke ambushes. Breakfast on the toilet. Pissing on toasters. Revenge sex. Angry coke dealers. Split lips. Beer sponges. Blowing strangers. Reading your boyfriend's email.

Sounds like a joyful beating.

(On side note...my new play is called "The Most Wonderful Love." John's is called "Total Faith in Cosmic Love." You taunt me, Devore.)

While the cat's away

The mice will play, as they say.

I'm still relatively busy, but I'd like to play a little game. Put these playwrights in order of your preference:

1. Edward "The Killer" Albee
2. Samuel "Frenchie" Beckett
3. The endless Eugene O'Neill
4. David...Mamet...fucking...Mamet...you know what I'm saying...David Mamet
5. The late Arthur Miller
6. Harold "Furious" Pinter
7. GB Shaw
8. Brecht. Just Brecht.
9. Topher Durang
10. For all you ladies out there...(winks)...Suzan Lori-Parks

Of course, explain why. That's part I like to read.

Natalie Portman wants to F*(k you too

As a Star Wars fan, I am appalled with glee.

Pro Wrestling

Does anyone else think that Professional Wrestling falls under the common definition of Theatre that most of us use?

1. Pro Wrestling has lines, characters and stories.
2. Pro Wrestling constructs dramatic narratives.
3. Pro Wrestling has actors (such as they are.)
4. (here's the kicker) Pro Wrestling is inherently live. It cannot function without interaction between an audience and the live performer. Imagine it without a live audience.
5. Pro Wrestling is as "real" as any play or musical.

What else, exactly, defines theatre?

I think it's important to remember that theatre is not an inherently upper class behavior, and requires exactly (apparently) no knowledge of literature or scholarly background to engage in it.

And if what I'm saying is correct...I demand Ben Brantley, Charles Isherwood or Jason Zioman review the next WWE show that comes to Madison Square Garden.

Come on. It would be brilliant.

On an entirely different note: Music I Like

I think more people should listen to Michael Penn. If you've never heard of him, he had exactly one hit, in the 1990s called "No Myth." Great frigging song. Has five albums: March, Free-For-All, Resigned, MP4(Days Since a Lost Time Accident), and Mr. Hollywood Jr. 1947.

He also did the music for two movies by Paul Thomas Anderson (Hard Eight and Boogie Nights).

Have iTunes? Buy "Look What the Cat Dragged in (Long Way Down)" or "Walter Reed" or "No Myth" or "Bucket Brigade." It's catchy, Beatles-esque but also adult pop: literate, complex rhymes, hooks that you actually want to sing to yourself as you're walking down the street.

How could this guy be so looked over? Maybe because his brother is Sean Penn and wife is Aimee Mann? Yeah, that could do it.

My Name Isn't Rachel Corrie

I've been a bit remiss in discussing the "Rachel Corrie" issue. After, giving it some thought, I'm certain that enough is expressed elsewhere. (Here, here and here for example.)

Suffice to say I think I'm not really all that qualified to talk about the Israel-Palestine conflict with much authority, unless it's feigned, and I'm certainly no fan of censorship. I'm also not a fan of attacking people without all the facts, and since I've never read the play and don't actually know what happened behind closed doors at the New York Theatre Workshop (and because I'm certain that the play is getting published in April, and that Rachel Corrie has foundations with her name attached, etc, etc, and that it was seen already in London) I think this isn't exactly the Night of the Long Knives and I'll just leave it at that.

EDIT:

This was posted via Superfluities. On www.rachelcorrie.org you can find out a great deal of information. But you can also find pamphlets like this one, which uses words like Genocide and has articles like "The Cost of Israel to US Taxpapers" and "Serving Two Flags: Neo-Cons, Israel and the Bush Administration" and "The Jewish Defamation League Unleashes A Campaign of Violence in the US."

There is a case someone will make for this sort of journalism... a sort of truth that's left out of our "Israel-friendly" media. But it sounds frighteningly like it accuses American Jewish people of dual loyalty, talks about Jewish violence in the US (ironic considering how little violence we actually face on a day-to-day basis) and actually showing how we should stop supporting Israel for our own wallets. It's, well, one-sided, too familiar, and a very, very slippery slope.

I'm not saying we should let Israel off the hook...I'm just saying let's be vigiliant. There's too much history not to be.

Oldie But A Goodie

Parabasis has been hosting a nice discussion about Shakespeare. I've been pretty busy (started a new job today) but I wanted to send out this older post, which is my send-up of First Folio Shakespeare, to contribute. I posted it last November.

Enjoy.

Is it just me...

Or have playwrights seemingly no idea how to dramatize the internet? And not just playwrights... movies also fail entirely. The minute something on film or on the stage depends on someone typing or getting something over e-mail, my eyes glaze over.

Something about this mode of communication and thought and information just doesn't seem to like to be observed. And even though technology is an increasingly central part of our lives, cell phones, pagers, beepers, Google, blogging, sending e-mails, web browsing...they seem utterly bloodless on the stage. Worse, they seem false to me. As if they are almost arbitrarily included in some plays in order to nod to the fact that they exist, as if they are this unavoidable thing you MUST acknowledge, even though they seemingly lack any sense of poetry.

Just thought I'd put that out there. Anyone know what I'm talking about?

Audio Piece # 2

For those of you that enjoyed the last piece (thanks MattJ and Boo for being so supportive of this odd tangent), or those that absolutely didn't bother with it...

Below is a link to the streaming audio of another piece, recorded in my room/basement in Brooklyn a few months back. Love to hear your thoughts.

Currently calling this, "I am (not) ready"

I did it! I did it!

Hilarious. My blog was unceremoniously removed from Terry Teachout's blogroll.

Is it because I curse too much?

Live and let live. Hasn't hurt my hit count one bit. I'll still link to you, Terry. No hard feelings.

The kiss off from the establishment? Music to my ears.

The sincerest form of flattery

Inspired by George Hunka's first podcast, which is excellent and can be found here, I thought I might contribute a bit to the audio blogging world, with this piece I recorded at home. Instead of commentary, this is just snippet of pieces of text, using my own voice. I've been fiddling around with different texts and choral things like this on and off. Did this in my basement. Looked silly. Had headphones on, alone, staring at my laptop.

It happens to the best of us.

Either way, using this forum to share a bit of the strange things we all call process, and snippets of me fiddling around with my work, is a nice change from just hearing my opinion about the work.

So here you go. It's about three or four minutes long, streaming audio. Here.

How to end the war in Iraq

Reinstitute the draft.

It's my belief that the average person that supports this war has shown little interest in the seemingly endless corruption that has plagued it, and the lies that have surrounded it. To most of them, the war is an idea, not a physical thing that includes risk. Very few Americans were actually physically effected by September 11th, even fewer know much about our history in the Middle East, and there are a very select few that are directly touched by the decisions that Bush makes regarding military action.

If you said to each person that has voted Republican just because it's good for the stock market, "You have given us a mandate to conscript your children into the wars of our choosing" I promise you that interest in the justifications for this war would rise up faster than tequila on an empty stomach. The consequences of voting for war would mean a willingness to risk real lives for war...not just the lives of those who are poor, willing (mostly through poverty), or are just on the other side.

Just my thoughts. Alison Croggon and Kirabug had a bit of a discussion about this idea in the comments section of "Who do we shoot?" Thoughts about this are welcome, as always.

Film is Evil: Radio is Good - Review

Here is my latest review for nytheatre.com.

Who do we shoot?

Steinbeck, in the Grapes of Wrath, places the most modern of questions in the mouth of a farmer. It is, "Who do we shoot?" The response, not only from the man he is threatening, but from a world of corporations, profits, heirarchies of authority and plausible deniability, is "I just don't know."

Recently, David Cote's Rabbit Hole review got a few of us in a bit of a tizzy. Then, in Superfluities ever entertaining comments section, Abe Goldfarb seemed pleased as bunch that George didn't exclude the "off-off-off-off [ad infinitum]" scene from the list of his disapprovals.

What strikes me as a unifying theme here is... everyone is looking for the right group to shoot, it seems. Here's a list of those recently complained about in the blogosphere:

Low Brow, Middle Brow, Popular Culture, the leftist press the Complacent Middle Class
High Brow
A culture that doesn't strive towards beauty
Bourgeois subscriber theaters that seem to prop up the ennui of white rich suburbanites
Right Wingers
Undergraduate Education

Of course, you can try to fix Undergraduate Education, but then you'll have differing views on what is being taken out and what is being added. Those who say "Theater should not be taught in school," might suggest it is a trade or craft. If so, schools will come into being that are not in the colleges, if a moratorium were placed on Theater Training in Universities.

We can expose the idiocy of the right wing, but until the culture as a whole feels personally affected by what is happening, they will not be moved. Perhaps we should reinstitute the draft. If we did, I promise you, the Iraq War would be over in two months.

We can speak down to the Low-Brow or Middle-Brow (a term I'm not entirely sure of) and they can write off the High Brow just as easily.

We can create impressively witty terms like Biltmore Syndrome and have fun with subscriber theater. But doing so seems to ignore the economics and realities of who is coming to see these shows and why the decision makers are so insular.

So what I think is this... none of these steps are healthy. I'm as guilty as the next guy for railing against Broadway, cursing about the abortions like Mamma Mia that plague our stages, but in the end, it's just chatter. It's funny, but there's only one way for us to solve our problems.

That is, dare I say, go positive. A supportive community is a healthy community. I expressly do not mean supportive of existing genius (I like Albee, I like the Greeks) but supportive of small theater as a whole, from the smallest vanity showcase to the most acrobatic new verse script that comes down the pike.

We're in a spiral of self-hatred here, crew. We say we love theatre, but I'd love to see more love.

The point of Steinbeck's passage is about a sense of impotence. I shoot this guy, and they'll send another guy. I shoot the guy who sends those guys, and the office in the city replaces him. I go to that office and shoot it up, they have another one elsewhere.

It's the whole thing that needs shaking up, and the little issues will never go away. There will always be a mainstream, and there will always be the outside of that mainstream. There will always be someone saying "Live and make art" and someone else saying "Study your art." There will always be upper class fuckwads who think we're supposed to care about their problems, and there will always be brilliant high brow genius that couldn't have come from someone who just walked out of working in the mines.

So let's stop trying to knock down a big brick wall with mosquito bites. If there is a problem that can be solved, I think we should talk about how to solve it. If not, I'd like to suggest that we talk a bit more about what it is about theatre, theatre that is happening right now, that we love so much.

A good model for this...is here.

Answering My Own Questions

Below I asked a few questions and got a lot of really interesting responses. I suggest anyone interested check out some of this blog's interested participants here and here.

I'm going to post my own answers to those questions as well, because hey, why should I leave myself out?

Here goes:

1. How often do you buy new plays to read?

I usually read plays as needed, not for pleasure. I usually buy novels for pleasure to read. I don't often buy plays that I'm not actually working on. Maybe two or three times a year, honestly. I already own most of my favorites.

2. Do you think of plays as written literature, or are they simply blueprints for a production?

I think plays are intended to be performed, not read.

3. Do you have a favorite critic to read (as opposed to one you despise)?

I actually like Ben Brantley when he gets really mad and slaps a show around. Like his Dracula review, which was hilarious. I also wish we had more theatre reviewers like Anthony Lane reviews films.

4. When is your next production? (This is where you can plug stuff with my permission.)

My next production, as of now, will be going up in June in NYC, and is called "The Most Wonderful Love." Also, a new anthology (as yet unannounced) will feature a play of mine. That will be released around the same time.

And the other set of questions:

1. Are you, or have you ever been, religious?

I was raised Episcopalian. My personal view, lately, is that while I'm certainly not my Dad...I think that the co-opting of Christianity by a political group has really cheapened what's good about it. This can happen to any religion. There are lots of beautiful concepts in most beliefs systems...and the question is always how they are applied, not how they are literally interpreted.

2. What sort of dreadful thing made you want to go into theater (or another creative endeavor?)

I wanted to be a poet, then I got into acting. I blame Endgame, almost entirely, for moving theatre past poetry in my good books.

3. Do you read poetry, and if so, who do you prefer?

I love poetry, but have less time to sit and read it than I used to. My favorites have included Mark Strand (whose work inspired Reasons for Moving), T.S. Eliot, Charles Simic and David Ignatow.

4. Do you think blogging is useful?

I'm not entirely sure yet. One half of me says that this dialogue is good for all of us. Another half of me says that only other bloggers seem interested in blogs and that theatre is better actually worked on that discussed. It certainly is a way for me to distract myself and NOT work on plays I should be editing and/or writing. But fun, yes...it is fun. And in the immortal final words of Captain James T. Kirk:

"It was...fun."

PillowFIGHT!

For God's Sake this is great.

Thanks to the Phantasmaphile for opening up this particular Pandora's Box for me.

What makes a good adaptation?

I have been reworking an adaptation for publication. Essentially, it's the medieval mystery plays, rewritten by machine for new technology. (Yes, I did just quote the Buggles.)

Actually, it's quite traditional, which is my preference with verse. I leave some in, throw some out, mix it up. I really wish I had a "theory of adaptation." What makes a good stage adaptation? What makes one a failure?

Note: I don't mean a translation.

Anyone have an opinion on this?

David Cote's Review of Rabbit Hole

Making the rounds on the theatrical blogosphere is David Cote's review of David Lindsay-Abaire's Rabbit Hole.

I posted on George Hunka's blog one of my little glib comments, and wound up with the reviewer himself, it seems, taking issue with it.

Now, as a writer, I'm not in the business of shaking a stick at critics. It's what one might call, um, career suicide? Yes, that's it. So I wanted to expand on my thoughts regarding that particular review.

Let's put it this way: I actually agree with the sentiment herein. I certainly have been known to bitch about The New Group to friends (they don't do 'new works' they revive works from the 1980s and 70s and put film stars in them); but that's just my bellyaching. It's the same impulse that makes me complain about Puff Daddy (P. Diddy?) being on Broadway, even though his presence probably brought more people to see A Raisin in the Sun that would have checked it out without him. The problem with MTC and the Roundabout isn't that they are intentionally trying to bore the shite out of us. And sometimes (let's be honest) they don't put up Woody Allen-lite. The problem is economic, purely, and its a lot less fun to write about or think about.

The reason I called the review a "joke" (poor choice of words, to be sure) is because there are far larger armies to shoot at than whether or not MTC can be often (too often?) stuffy. I think we should be more concerned about how the subscribers of MTC are the only people that CARE to support them, and those subscribers are probably collectively one billion years old.

If the theaters the Cote takes a knife to want to survive, they cannot do so without making some money. And in order to do that, they have to appeal to the sort of upper class, insulated snobs that would find Elevator Repair Service and The National Theater of the United States baffling.

Essentially, screaming about how bored we are won't do much. Instead, we need to think about how to get the good stuff out of the slums. And that means broadening the ticket buying interest of younger people who might appreciate a little Uzi-Wielding Hobo action.

We need to take collective action to promote and encourage younger audiences (I'm talking below 35 here) to take a real and active interest in the theater.

It might be the chicken or the egg issue: Would more young audiences come if the plays were directed to them? Maybe so. I suspect, as of now, they're not about to dig into their pockets and become full-time subscribers.

That's what we need to attack. Disinterest.

Not the author of Fuddy Meers for writing a play that's not "challenging" enough.

John Belluso

The death of a playwright at so young an age is a terrible thing. Read more about John Belluso on nytheatre.com here.

My thoughts and prayers go out to his family and all that knew and loved him.

Another quick set of questions

Since that was fun...

1. Are you, or have you ever been, religious?
2. What sort of dreadful thing made you want to go into theater (or another creative endeavor?)
3. Do you read poetry, and if so, who do you prefer?
4. Do you think blogging is useful?

I love this post

Reasons why it's good to be a playwright.

A few things I would like to ask...

Just a few questions from all those who care to read my ramblings. Things I'm curious about.

1. How often do you buy new plays to read?
2. Do you think of plays as written literature, or are they simply blueprints for a production?
3. Do you have a favorite critic to read (as opposed to one you despise)?
4. When is your next production? (This is where you can plug stuff with my permission.)

Onwards and upwards.

On Offense

I was thinking, a bit, about the subject of offending others. It's come into focus recently by way of both Scott Walters's thoughts about how how some playwrights seem to take pride in "shaking the audience up" and also by way of the recent international discussion of "offensive" cartoons that have brought about (some say) violence.

The fact is, the entire negotiation between the society and its artists regarding what is too far, what is too much, what is acceptable to show and what is not... this is entirely medieval and overwhemlingly purposeless. The questions we ask ourselves should not be about what should be expressed, but the validity of the ideas that are expressed.

The term "offensive" is essentially one that is intended to restrict and qualify expression. Insofar as artists and media consider the offense or lack thereof of their work, they are accepting the low ground in Custer-style battle. Any argument that speaks to the relative offensiveness of a piece of art, be it cartoon or play, is making an argument for censorship.

Whenever one discusses what has offended them, the question of whether the offending phrase should have been printed or uttered is ridiculous. All ignorant, terrifyingly stupid or profane ideas should be given as much sunlight as possible. Otherwise, we are not engaging with the worst of ourselves, and that sort of denial will only allow ignorance to pervade and fester.

When an individual professes a racist, sexist or homophobic view...I assert that this is valuable and essential to free debate and discussion. How can one truly know that they expressly disagree with one side if they do not hear it? If they cannot challenge it?

Simply put, all language, all sentiment, all ideas, must be allowed open airing and freedom. Otherwise, no true discussion is possible.

The moment we retract statements, shrink from offense, or hide the ugliness of the world from our eyes and the eyes of those we hope to inform, is the moment we surrender true debate. And it is in the trenches of debate that we can wrestle out fact.

Two different viewpoints are not, automatically, equal. There is, more often than not, a correct side. One based on fact and faith and morality, that trumps the side that is false. We have fallen into a trap, lately, of allowing one side to simply be someone else's point-of-view, based on some experience, and all views (especially political) are treated as equal sides. As two sides of the same coin.

But the arguments for and against segregation, abortion rights, assisted suicide, war, foreign aid, religious extremism, bigotry and violence are not equal. There are correct sides, based on fact and values and ethics, that can only come to light if both sides, or as many sides as possible, are put into the public arena and scrutinized for fact and validity.

By not showing the offending cartoons from Denmark, for example, newspapers are treating their audience as children and the religious views of Muslim extremist with too much deference. By not treating writers who express views we disagree with (life is meaningless and terrible and sad might be one) as artists who should be given respect, we make art we do agree with much less valuable.

When is Art Inciting Riots Not Art Inciting Riots

When it's not the art inciting riots... or somesuch.

I wrote a glib comment on this issue, but it's clearly a lot more complex than me having a sort of double take whenever I see the word "Cartoon" in a NY Times headline.

For more about the nuances of this issue, from others on the theatrosphere, check out Parabasis and the Playgoer.

Now, I'm going to be a bit less glib and address a little of this free-speech/terrorism discussion.

I'd like to predict that not only will the United States attack Iran before the end of this year, but that incidents like that of the Denmark cartoon will happen with increasing frequently. The reason is that the United States, through policy and rhetoric, has used its bully pulpit to cast the entire Middle East with a broad brush, and treat disenfranchised, oppressed people as a great unwashed Other, waiting for our helping hand.

The result... a generation of Muslims that believe they are under attack, egged on by warlords and religiously themed politicos, becoming radicalized to the most extreme parts of their religion because they have been convinced that their way of life is being threatened.

They are remarkably like Pro-Lifers in the States, in that way.

I think the problem people are having with this issue is that in the United States, we have become so polarized that we see outrage and compassion as mutually exclusive? Am I a liberal if I'm outraged by the violence Islamic citizens who feel their culture has been mocked? Am I conservative enough if I think that the protestors have the right to be furious as their religion being mocked? What if it were the New York Post putting up pictures that denied the Holocaust? Would our "freedom of speech" alarms be going off then?

Instead, it's important to remember that both sides are in the wrong, but for entirely different reasons. We must, though, stand by the principle that speech must be protected above the right to act violently. As I wrote on Isaac Butler's blog, it's a slippery slope to equate acts of violence with free expression. Violence is a part of the free exchange of ideas in the same way that a bullet is having a conversation with someone else's head.

We cannot, though, be foolish enough to look at this violence and think that it is entirely coming out of cartoons. Obviously, as we have shamed, criticized and attacked different parts of the Middle East, we have added fuel to the fires that radicalism feeds from. We will undoubtedly do the same in Iran, as we have in Iraq and elsewhere.

One of the few important things the US was able to cling to in the past was a sense of moral authortity. It was defensible to tell lies to a tepid American public in the 1940s when, for example, the US was going to Europe to defeat Hitler. (I'm sure Hitler had more supporters in this country that any of us would like to imagine.) But as long as our military was used as a last resort against an undeniably evil foe, in combination with the will over other nations, we could speak as a nation guided by at least the appearance of sense.

Now, after repeated "military actions," undeclared wars, the tortures at Abu Ghraib, and the farce of our dealings in Iraq...we can no longer call others to task on not letting a cool head outweigh violence. We have tipped the world towards violence as a means to an end, and now we are seeing those consequences.

The violence in the Middle East regarding something as silly, seemingly, as offensive cartoons is absurd. But absurdity is the order of the day, it seems.

If we want this sort of thing to change, it's not really a choice about whether or not hate speech is protected speech. It's a choice about how we will conduct our own business in the future, and how to declaw the radicalization of the Middle East, before there truly is no putting out those fires.

Theatermania's Review of Paradise

Blue Coyote Theatre Group's lastest production Paradise, by David Foley, gets a rock-solid review from Theatermania. Check it out here. And find details about how to see the production here.

Bridge & Tunnel Review

My review of Bridge & Tunnel is linked in the title.

Islam Mocked By Cartoon

Ok. Now, I totally understand that no one likes their God offended.

To have one's God made fun of in a CARTOON in DENMARK?

Seriously, most religious undergrads go through bigger tests of faith just by reading.

This is not a defense of bigotry or hate speech. It's just silly to blow stuff up over cartoons. Honestly, kids, don't do it.

Surveillance Hearings

Yesterday, the Senate began hearing on the Bush Administration's latest attempt to justify unchecked executive power in the name of "The War on Terror."

Ironically, the man sworn to be the highest law enforcement official in our country, the Attorney General, is the one saying things like "We believe it's not illegal." Since when did legality come down to a question of belief? There's this law, see. It says "In order to wiretap Americans phone calls you need to go to a special FISA court and get a warrant."

Now, FISA almost never says no. Also, you can apply for a warrant AFTER you have performed the action, so it's not like you have to stand around with your Presidential Thumb Up Your Almighty Bum while you wait for Terrorists to make plans. But apparently, the Bush team decided that this law didn't work for them, so they essentially decided that they had to break it, out of either laziness or arrogance.

Now, if what they're doing doesn't work within the law, there are two things that need to be asked... 1) Should the law be adjusted to allow for new methods or 2) should they NOT be doing what is not allowed by this law, no matter their opinion of the situation.

Either you abide by the law, or you don't. This is the Bush creed.

Take their lies, for example. They are careful (or have been in the past) not to lie while under oath. That means whenever they have been questioned on a particularly dicey subject (like the 9/11 Commission) they do so in complete media blackout while NOT under oath.

Why would they do this? Because it's not against the law to lie. It's against the law to lie under oath. They nailed Clinton about lying under oath and had the man impeached.

Bush had the gall to stand before the press and say "I DID break the law, and no one can stop me, because this country is only as free as I allow it to be."

If we take that lying down, the frail illusion of representative government and laws that matter to ALL Americans will be utterly shattered.

Bush has no shame. We have to shame him.

The Proposed 2007 Budget

I will put this bluntly: Once again the Arts is Treated Like A Read-Headed Stepchild.

From the Budget:

"NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS
The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) supports excellence in the arts, brings the arts to all Americans, and provides leadership in arts education. In 2007, the Budget proposes $124 million for programs and associated costs, including Challenge America: Reaching Every Community grants; and national initiatives, such as American Masterpieces: Three Centuries of Artistic Genius. The American Masterpieces initiative will continue to celebrate our Nation’s great artistic achievements with special touring programs in dance; visual arts; literature; choral music and musical theater; local presentations; in-school arts education programs; and student visits to exhibitions, presentations, and performances. NEA will fund projects that extend the reach of the arts by supporting works of artistic excellence and promoting projects in communities that have not had access to quality arts programming. These projects will be supported with public and private partners, including State arts agencies and regional arts organizations."

You read it... $124 million. Now... let's put that in perspective, shall we?

"The President's Defense Budget:

Provides $439.3 billion for the Department of Defense’s base budget—a 7-percent increase over 2006 and a 48-percent increase over 2001—to maintain a high level of military readiness, develop and procure new weapon systems to ensure U.S. battlefield superiority, and support our servicemembers and their families;
Requests $50 billion in 2007 bridge funding to support the military’s Global War on Terror efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq into 2007;
Expands the Predator Unmanned Aerial Vehicle force from 12 to 21 orbits, each supporting 3-4 aircraft, to increase sustained 24-hour surveillance capabilities;
Increases substantially the size and capabilities of the Special Operations Command;
Adds $173.3 million to continue developing and refining a New Triad of smaller nuclear forces, enhanced missile defenses, and improved command and control; and
Provides an additional 2.2-percent increase in basic pay."

The Budget for the movie "The Chronicles of Narnia" was $60 million dollars MORE than the entire Federal Budget from the NEA.

The message?

Go to the movies and KILL!

Jamie Hall for POINT BREAK LIVE!

Jamie Hall, director of POINT BREAK LIVE! took a little time to answer some questions regarding the upcoming production, at Galapogos in beautiful Billyburg, Brooklyn.

Ok, so the first question is, of course, what possessed you to make a theater piece out of POINT BREAK?

Point Break LIVE is really a call to arms for the Theatre world. I have long been concerned that Hollywood is stealing our audience away with ass-kicking and action. The proof is in the numbers: I mean, there are, what, like 50 people total who see all the same broadway shows, whereas in New York alone, there were over 120 million movie tickets sold last year alone? You have to ask yourself, why? Why do so many more people react favorably to a great action film than the latest Harold Pinter Bore-fest? I think the answer is that the Theatre world has ceded the true lessons of Aeschylus and Sophocles and the Greeks to Hollywood. I believe that it is Hollywood, and action films in particular, that currently provide that cathartic experience that the human animal so craves.

However, I don’t believe it has to be that way. But the Theatre has to evolve! No more “manifest human drama,” no more meaningful pauses. Let’s put gunfire and ass-kicking back where it belongs, behind the proscenium! Point Break LIVE! Intents to return theatre to its roots. We’re gonna rob you at gunpoint, we’re gonna push you out the door of a moving aeroplane—you won’t even know you are in a theatre.

Do people need to have seen the movie to enjoy the performance?

It is imperative for a true appreciation of the play to see the film as many times as humanly possible. Just as you should have read your bible between Sunday sermons, you should see Point Break between successive viewings of the play. That said, like churchgoing, many may enjoy the experience without performing their due diligence.

Give anyone who hasn’t seen it a description of the film.

It’s a hell of a film. Keanu Reeves stars as an FBI guy deep undercover with some surfer-bank-robbing-extreme-sports-fanatics. He gets in over his head, and chaos ensues. The pursuer becomes that he is pursuing. It is the same plot as Prometheus Bound, only on the beach with surfing. And no sex—but lots of homoerotic overtones.

What makes POINT BREAK the right movie for this kind of Brechtian overhaul?

Point Break is a perfect play for revision, because a. it kicks ass, b. it relates classic themes, of alienation, of the “other” losing his moral compass in an effort to belong, of men changing the world through the power of ideals, and c. it features Keanu Reeves.

Talk about how you “cast” Keanu Reeves and how it’s worked in the past?

Keanu Reeves roles demand a very special kind of actor: basically, you have to look at all times like you’ve just been dropped in the middle of the room and have no idea what is going on. In order to reproduce this unique “tabula rasa” acting style, we select a random person from the audience just moments before the curtain, and then have them read all their lines from cue cards for the duration of the show. This provides just the right “deer caught in the headlights” touch.

It has worked flawlessly just about every time. My highest praise as a director came from a woman who brought her blind date to Point Break LIVE in Minneapolis: she told me later that she made love to him that very night, in no small part moved by his performance.

In your press notes, you say that everyone (even Edward Albee and Tony Kushner) want to be action directors. Does Munich prove this?

Munich is the inversion that proves the rule: absolutely

What are your favorite action films?

King Lear, Electra, Oedipus Rex, Doctor Faustus, and The Fast and the Furious

Do you find (or expect) the audiences in Brooklyn to be different or have a different experience than those in Seattle?

Inasumuch as Point Break LIVE! Is a show that feeds on Hipster complacency, and uses it to fuel a huge, aggressive thrill machine, I expect Williamsburg to be an ideal home for the show. And I expect the audience to get wet.

And believe me, the Hipsters of Seattle’s Capitol Hill easily give the shoe-gazers of Willliamsburg a run for their money.

And last, but not least, what’s next for you after the limited engagement in Galapogos?

My next show will hopefully be the full-cast version of Jesus Christ Superstar performed on the mainstage of Pete’s Candy Store.

A Knife to a Gun Fight

Ok, I thought perhaps I'd avoid the sort of oddball argument that was going on over at Theatre Ideas re: "In Yer Face Theatre." Both Scott and George chimed in, as they are wont to do, by taking pretty harsh swipes at each other, and couching it in Bartlett's Familiar Quotations.

Then Scott posted this:

Joshua writes, "It's not the crudeness or the confrontational that matters, but what you accomplish with it that counts." In other words, the ends justifies the means. I disgree. In the 1960s, the Free Speech Movement promoted free speech by shouting down anyone who disagreed with them. This is a contradiction. You have to walk the walk, not just talk the talk. If you dislike brutality, then using brutal means to make your point is a contradiction. Fighting fire with fire leads to more fire.

And I would like to say that this sort of hyperbolic diatribe is actually rather ironic. Is there no "fire" in what's being said here? Is the implication not that there are a tribe of barbarian youths who dare to say fuck and talk about rape and suicide and murder and drugs? I know that what's being said isn't that all anger, all vitriol, all cursing and rage are "garbage in" and that all we should be carefully expressing as artists is some sort of hug around the world.

A little ways back I wrote a post that compared Artists to Friends or Doctors. And I tell the dirtiest jokes to my friends, not my professional colleagues and I certainly couldn't if I were talking to a group of students. But the audience is not my student. It is not always contempt for the audience that drives people to cry out in pain and show their scars. Sometimes it's the desire to not be the only person screaming at the top of your lungs. (Here's a fine example of this used as fabulous populist art.)

Sometimes writing, expression isn't expressly beautiful. That is when the profane can become the sacred. I'm sure there were many who thought "The Theif's Journal" was a pornographic novel. And it is. But Genet found beauty in blood and grit and vaseline.

So Joshua isn't saying, if you follow me, that the ends justify the means. He is saying that the means and the ends are not necessarily divorced from one another. That simply writing, in a closed place, something that is emotional and profane and childish and challenging IS the end. You can say "I love the world" with a filthy mouth, and you can say "You can all go die in your boots" with an air of pristine authority.

Isn't it enough to use how you speak to affect how your message is heard? With all due respect to all involved, we can all enjoy this chatter, but the minute someone decides to play Arbiter of Good Taste, they should simply go show, not tell, the sort of art they'd like to see in this world.
And, of course, it's all nice to make speeches from Ghandi country. But if you're involved in a deahtmatch with something that is a lot bigger than you (Sarah Kane versus the Bitter Angst of Mental Illness) you better not bring a knife to that gunfight. You'd better go down shooting.

*breathes*

And for the record: Can we not lighten up a bit? Was Shakespeare being a sentimentalist when he made pudenda and prick jokes? No. He was engaging in low humor. Because, you know, it's fun.

14 Defining Characteristics of Fascism

Sent to me from the Phantasmaphile, via the Randi Rhodes Newsletter.

Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism

Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes.Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

The above is a summery of the more detailed orignal article "Fascism Anyone?" first published in Spring 2003 edition of Free Inquiry

Puppies Used As Drug Mules

I think it's worse when it's done to people.

Who do you care about more?

...that's what I thought.

Poem by a friend

Unearthed this older poem by my friend Marshall Warfield. Was thinking of him today. He's in Washington, D.C. with his bride-to-be.

"How to Balance Your Check Book"
by Marshall Warfield

Sometimes the only solution to
that fucking checkbook lies in
the bottom of the Vodka bottle.

So start there. If you're still
a few dollars off, move on to dry gin,
which for me, goes down like broken
dusty, cinder blocks. You'll work harder.

On your way to the one's column,
(the ten's column came out okay)
the gin will come up in little chunks
of anguish. Go to the bathroom.
Aim for the toilet because cleaning
the floor is another chore
and the checkbook is enough.


The ones are off by only a dollar now,
so go to a party for some change -
not that any of this makes sense.
Talk with a woman (or man), discover

that they are a business major or high
finance executive. Fall in love with
the idea of a balanced checkbook
tucked into their tight back pocket.

Smell the fragrance from behind their ear.
Pretend the party is too loud and this is
the only way they can hear you. Take them
home with you.

Somehow, that step just happens. Trust me.
Before they tuck you in, point
to the checkbook on the desk.

Let them smile at you. That night dream
of such wonderful goosestepping, order.
March down all the New York highways
and bridges of Robert Moses.

In the morning, you'll find it all works out.

I'm sorry... did this happen?

Groundhog Day. Contraversy.

Perhaps they could solve this problem by creating a Groundhog with... human toes!

Around the Theatrical Blogosphere (Apologies to Zay)

George Hunka and Josh James both recently posted a little bit about "The Truth."

Also, MattJ (apparently a director with promise according to Dan Trujillo) posts about Director-Playwright Copywright here.

This gent hates the term blogosphere. It is, shall we say, not the prettiest word. Oh well.

Onwards and upwards.

Two Quick Notes

1. Just saw Bridge & Tunnel. Will post a full review of it for nytheatre.com, but would like to say that whoever makes my girlfriend laugh AND cry had better be a woman with a boyfriend. Otherwise, I'd feel TOTALLY threatened.

(That means I liked it.)

2. Kristin Chenoweth is on the cover of FHM. I shit you not. Sure, I could make a joke like...now that's Wicked! But that's just beneath me.

Can you hear that? That's the Mary Tyler Moore theme song playing in the background, as stacks of FHMs are delivering Ms. Chenowith into the masturbation fantasies of people who will never see a Broadway musical.

YOU DID IT, KRISTIN! YOU DID IT!

Message the the Centaurs: We Will Break You

Actual text from Bush's speech last night:

"A hopeful society has institutions of science and medicine that do not cut ethical corners and that recognize the matchless value of every life. Tonight I ask you to pass legislation to prohibit the most egregious abuses of medical research, human cloning in all its forms, creating or implanting embryos for experiments, creating human-animal hybrids, and buying, selling or patenting human embryos. Human life is a gift from our creator, and that gift should never be discarded, devalued or put up for sale."

Freeman: Excuse me? Did you say...animal-human hybrids? Are you joking?

Bush: "Didn't you hear about the Ant-Women? The Centaurs? The spiders with two...human...eyes? The Creator, ahem, intelligent designer, would never have brought about the seductive Bee-Girls! May God Have Mercy on What We Have Done."

Director's Copywright

Before I get to restating the union today, I'd like to send any readers over to Isaac Butler's passionate "gut response" to a NY Times piece about creative control issues between writers and directors. Here it is.

My gut responses to what Isaac is saying here are as follows:

I think it's sort of amazing that directors, who are a nearly unstoppable force in the rehearsal room, and omnipotent in many smaller productions behind the scenes, are essentially getting less recognition after a production or in the press than they would like for what is being deemed "their contribution."

And while the best directors offer more than contributions (I'm thinking more along the lines of "solutions"), it is obviously a slippery slope. What if, for example, you want to produce Arsenic and Old Lace and you've got a script that says "Two Old Women Walk Downstage Left." If you, as a director, simply have them walk down-stage left, are you using the orginal staging? Should you have to put the performers upstage left to avoid paying for rights?

And what about actors? Should the Marlon Brando estate receive royalties every time a lumbering oaf does an imitation of him in "Streetcar Named Desire?" at a local community theater?

The question here is, as Isaac says, authorship. And proof of authorship is where rights come into effect. One reason playwrights have a great deal of creative control in the theatre is that they are the creator of the very thing being worked upon by others. The principle is, as I understand it: "If you build something, it belongs to you. If others use that thing, they should pay for the right to use it."

If they take that thing and create something entirely new...well...then we're going to have to sit down and hammer out exactly how new it is.

If we move towards copywrighting interpretation (I staged the play this way, I spoke the line this way) we are about to enter a legal limbo from which we will never be pardoned.

That being said, there is one theme emerging lately (it's also been discussed recently on the nytheatre i) which is that directors seem to be up to their eyeballs in frustration with their recognition in the theatre.