The "historic shift"

Well, I can't exactly say that my prediction came true. A large shift towards Republicans in the House of Representatives did, in fact, come to pass. This is, though, a shift that comes largely because of public confusion, not public policy. The largest forces that have helped the country avoid an economic depression and collapse, federal spending, bailing out the auto industry, etc; are the very forces that voters have been convinced are a problem.

The "deficit" seems to be the largest problem for people, which strikes me as a significantly cynical piece of conservative slight-of-hand. By focusing voter anger on this issue, they have somehow hoodwinked the public into believing the Democrats ballooned the deficit (it was Republicans) and that the Wall Street Bailout was not done under Bush (and that even costs a fraction of what it was supposed to) and that deficit reduction, lower taxes and job creation can somehow co-exist easily in the same political universe.

In fact, lowering taxes helps balloon deficits and does not lead to job creation. Federal spending does not hurt the public...in fact, smart federal spending pays for schools, police and fire departments, provides public assistance during a major economic crisis, and keeps state governments from having to turn off the lights.

All that being said, the facts are not as cut and dry "good news" for the right as they might seem. First of all, almost half of their seat pick-ups were Tea Party candidates, who have all but promised to be a thorn in Republican leadership's side and to bring some truly wacky ideas to the table.

Also, Blue Dog Democrats largely lost. The Times notes that this lack of moderate voices might be a problem for Democrats...but I don't know. It seems like most voters discontent with Democrats was not that they lacked the desire to compromise. Instead, most progressives that were not energized lacked energy because their party was not hard-nosed enough about progressive values.

Republicans have now become tied to promises to reduce the deficit without raising taxes - which means cutting spending only. And of course, they have made no major suggestions about how they will do that - except completely absurd things like dismantling the Department of Education. They stated on the record that they will not touch entitlements or defense...which are the largest pieces of the federal pie. They've set themselves up - simply to gain power - to fail to match their rhetoric.

They've also said they would like to repeal health care reform...an impossible task without control of the Senate or a veto-proof majority.

Oh and ... the Senate. Suddenly small beer? I'm not so sure about that. Now that there is almost no way to achieve 60 votes in the Senate without crossing party lines, how will the Republicans use the filibuster to their advantage? Their own legislation will come up from the House and die in a Senate controlled by the opposite party. Frankly, more than 400 bills passed by a Democratic Congress failed in the Senate over the last two years. Do we expect that a largely splintered Republican-controlled Congress will have more success in Harry Reid's Senate?

The Tea Party, which helped the Republicans make massive gains in the House, actually did them serious harm in their bid to take the Senate. Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell lost in places that Republicans could have won (thank God). And it looks like, as of this writing, that Colorado and Washington State will remain Blue (very close races there), largely because of lunatic candidates.

Obviously, there's been a lot of bad news, mostly, to my mind, about how cynically and sadly the Republican Party has been able to - in only two years - convince voters to vote against their own interests yet again. But governance is a whole different animal. The great irony is that Democrats are not expert propagandists, but are better at governing. Republicans are great to obediently attacking and staying on message, but their actual ability to govern is deeply suspect. Let's see, now that some of the power in Washington lies in GOP hands, just what they do with it.

If the public was upset about gridlock, then we've done exactly the opposite of what will do any good. The "enthusiasm gap" was really the "Unfounded Rage At Imaginary Issues" gap. Rage might make you go and vote, but it's never stimulated the part of the brain that does us any good.

Things change fast in our country and your collective memory is getting shorter. I don't feel remotely like this bodes any which way for 2012, honestly. 2 years, as we can see now, is a very long time in politics.

Added to the blogroll

Matt Trueman.

Midterms

I'm going to predict that we'll see better results for the Democrats than the dire reports have indicated. They'll keep the Senate, and if the Republicans do take the house, it'll be by the skin of their teeth.

We'll see if I'm wrong. Fun game, this punditry.

We'll also see, no matter what, media outlets declaring even a small gain for Republicans as a complete rejection of Obama's policies by the American People.

Um

Does Theater count as an Art?

h/t Rob Weinert-Kendt

A few quick items

Trying to get back into the swing of blogging after some time away. Saw and read a few things recently, so instead of posting about each one, I thought I'd give a few thoughts about each. Capsule style.

The Social Network - I'm the last one to the dance on this movie, which was built up tremendously for me before I saw it. Movie of the decade and all that jazz. Expectation is funny that way. The movie, to me, is a Perfectly Acceptable Film with some good scenes and good acting, but it never really soared for me. There are great films I've seen in my life that made me sort of go "Wow this is working for me on every level." This film never hit that for me. It's got some writerly Sorkin-esque quick dialogue that was fun but entirely expected and the promised pettiness and betrayals that make a movie like this fun. But ultimately, too much of it happened over conference room tables for me to be blown away. I liked it, a lot, but it never made me want to cheer.

After my initial response, I was able to say: yes this is about how people ache for acceptance, about how seemingly new technology is just harnessing our desire for connection, and about the irony of a software that was built by misanthropes that does the math on how to be social. I mean, the ideas are there and the performances are there. It just never flew for me.

Freedom by Jonathan Franzen - Read this. Not a groundbreaking response: fantastic. I will say that the sheer number of people with what sounds like clinical depression gets to be rather overwhelming, but that reads true for the characters involved. There's something painful on every page, but it's also exhilarating. I've heard that some people think Patty Berglund writes a bit too well to be a convincingly true character, but I loved the sections in her voice. Her competitiveness and family dynamics just seemed heartfelt, cruel and authentic.

Little Foxes as directed by Ivo Van Hove - Pam and I saw Misanthrope a few years back and that production was absolutely one of the best things I've ever seen. There was something primal at play, and the way the characters churned in the stew of their own misery and hate, counterpointed Moliere... just floored me. Here, though, the text is not reimagined so much as turned up. The drama is nullified as actors hump the walls or spit in one another's faces. Without a constricting Southern culture to put the characters behavior into a context, it just all gets wiped clean.

That isn't to say that I was entirely unmoved or unimpressed. There's nothing but competence as far as the eye can see at NYTW. I'd much prefer to see something that goes for the gusto and misses with all it's might than something that has carefully trained to hit the "surprise me" "shock me" and "sadden me" buttons.

Qui Nguyen and Abby Marcus are moving to Minnesota - Say hi to my family out there guys! And Isaac Butler! And come back soon!

The Force Unleashed II - Man, I beat this video game in like 4 hours. Seriously.

Rubicon - What a great show! Very old fashioned: mature, smart, well-paced. The season is over now, but get it on iTunes or whatever. It's filmed in NYC, which means lots of great local actors (Christopher Evan Welch, James Badge Dale, Dallas Roberts) and locations. Also, my dear beloved Natalie Gold is all over that show and is awesome. Plus Keira Keeley!


----

There. That's out of the way. Maybe I can actually blog a bit now.

I'm suddenly very happy

That Isherwood never reviewed When Is A Clock.

Which has a lot of direct address. A lot. Because, you know, I think it works for the play.

Hitched

I'm back on the grid after an absolutely smashing wedding. I am the happiest guy around right now. It couldn't have been more beautiful. Thanks to everyone who was there that made it so special, to Lynda, our friend and officiant, our families, John Devore who was our awesome MC...just thanks.

After the ceremony and festivities, Pam and I took a trip up to Hudson, NY. If you're ever around that way, might I recommend staying at The Croff House? It's where we stayed and I can't praise it highly enough. The couple that run it, Russ and Duncan, are just insanely terrific.

Anyway thanks for your patience. I'll hopefully have more to say soon enough. In the meantime, how're you?

Gettin' hitched

Well ladies and gents, time to go on a brief hiatus. I will not be blogging for about a week and a half, as I'm getting married on Saturday to this lovely lass.

See you on the other side!

National Coming Out Day

On National Coming Out Day, I'd like to send a special thought to my brother Dan.

Where Dan and I grew up, it wasn't exactly easy to be gay. In fact, I'm sure it was incredibly confusing and difficult for him. Now that he's out, living with his long-time partner Joe, he's got a great house in the Minneapolis area and a fantastic job.

Dan has been through a lot in his life, but he's right now as happy as I've ever seen him. I'm proud of him and I love him and I know that he wouldn't be as happy as he is now if he hadn't decided to embrace himself and live in the open. He's incredibly smart, strong and determined. He's an inspiration.

Love you Danny! Happy Coming Out Day!

Bachelor Party

All I can say is that I remember about one third of my bachelor party. So, mission accomplished right?

David Freeman (my brother) gets a great review!

"Though Derek Ewing and David Freeman are chilling as the underlings implicated in the death, each exquisitely reveal how their characters' youthful malleability has been exploited by their commanding officer, Lt. Col. Nathan Jessep."

Okay musical theater lovers

How do we like the new Spider Man musical preview song?

Steve Burns tells a story on The Moth podcast

Steve Burns has a great story up at The Moth. Their podcast is terrific, and you should definitely check it out on iTunes.

You may have heard of him from GLEE CLUB, THAT OLD SOFT SHOE, DENOUEMENT and BRANDYWINE DISTILLERY FIRE. Oh, and that kids show.

Listen here. Fantastic.

Obama at Gen44 Summit

Listen. This is a great speech, but more than that, it's true. I absolutely still believe in this guy, and if you don't, remember how many of his opponents are blissed out by idea of you feeling disheartened. That's their whole strategy people. Anyway, love this.

And while I'm at it

Kyle shared this with me and now, I share it with you.

Playgoer's new feature

Welcome to New York, Starving Artists Part 1. Got to love this.

Brooklyn Stories at the Brick is written up in Time Out

Burns is highlighted, and is grin-worthy.

Read about it here.

Obama on meeting Bob Dylan

You had Bob Dylan here. How did that go?
Here's what I love about Dylan: He was exactly as you'd expect he would be. He wouldn't come to the rehearsal; usually, all these guys are practicing before the set in the evening. He didn't want to take a picture with me; usually all the talent is dying to take a picture with me and Michelle before the show, but he didn't show up to that. He came in and played "The Times They Are A-Changin'." A beautiful rendition. The guy is so steeped in this stuff that he can just come up with some new arrangement, and the song sounds completely different. Finishes the song, steps off the stage — I'm sitting right in the front row — comes up, shakes my hand, sort of tips his head, gives me just a little grin, and then leaves. And that was it — then he left. That was our only interaction with him. And I thought: That's how you want Bob Dylan, right? You don't want him to be all cheesin' and grinnin' with you. You want him to be a little skeptical about the whole enterprise. So that was a real treat.

From the Rolling Stone Interview

Let's make a deal

I'll just send George Lucas my checking account and the routing number and he can just take whatever he wants. Wouldn't that be easier than a 3D conversion of each film?

Christ. Christ. Goodbye money. Goodbye.

A conversation about Equity

I believe Actor's Equity has a long way to go before it recognizes the modern realities of producing small theater in New York City. For example, I recently heard a story about a company (that I will not name) that was told they could not use live video feed of the actor's on stage (not recording the actors, live video feed) for a Showcase Code production. This included, oddly enough, Non-Equity Actors. In other words, according to this story, the union not only told the producer of this Showcase Code show that they could not use the now-not-terribly-new device of live video; but that this ruling applied to actors that were not actually members of their union.

This was a head-scratcher for me. And so, I posted this question on Facebook and got several interesting responses from producers on the Indie Theater scene.

I'm going to copy the conversation thread in its entirety, with names removed, so that no one will go on record as criticizing the union. I think, though, that it's a conversation worth reading, and considering.

Two caveats:

1. I asked permission from the Facebook contributors before posting this to my blog.
2. In case you're wondering, I'm not anti-union. I'm a big pro-union guy. I think unions do important work. In this case, though, in an effort to protect the interests of a few, AEA stifling the very industry that could and should be growing in New York City.

And so...the conversation...

Matthew Freeman Hey Producers -

Have you ever received instruction from AEA on how you are to treat non-Equity actors?

PRODUCER 1

What do you mean by 'treat"? I've worked with generally mixed Equity/Non-Equity casts.

MF

I guess I mean have you ever received, from Equity, instruction on rules governing non-Equity actors. For anything: breaks, rehearsal time, pay, filming, whatever. I'm curious.

PRODUCER 1

No. I just treat them the same (including pay) as the Equity actors, otherwise chaos ensues. I mean, if i was doing a big show where there were ten roles from a nonec apprentice company, it'd be a different story.

MF

Makes sense. But that's self-selecting good behavior. It's my understanding that Equity will occasionally include directions to companies about the use of non-union members. I was looking for someone to confirm or deny that.

PRODUCER 1

Hm. Not on a showcase level as far as I know. I bet once you're on a seasonal showcase or above code it starts to happen.

PRODUCER 2

Matt- let me ask down at Long Wharf today- we have a Christmas show that hires both.

PRODUCER 3

Hey Matthew, still not real clear what you are asking. Are you asking about Showcase codes specifically? The production itself falls under the domain of AEA so filming, rehearsals etc would be privy to the same treatment. As far as paying non-AEA, no need according to the contract but as producer 1 says, it is good practice to pay non-AEA something in an AEA showcase. http://actorsequity.org/docs/codes/Showcase_Producer_Kit.pdf

MF

No, no, I'm more trying to get into a specific point, one that you just sort of illuminated. The production itself falls under the code as opposed to the actors within the production? Which means that all actors in the production (even those who are not union members) cannot be filmed? Have the same restrictions in terms of hours of rehearsal? The only thing it doesn't apply to is pay?

PRODUCER 4

To the best of my knowledge, Equity doesn't give a crap about non-Equity actors. The rules of the code or contract only apply to Equity actors. Non-Equity actors would only be affected indirectly - for example, under the Showcase code you can't pay a non-Equity actor more than you're paying any Equity actor. You can film as much as you like of a show as long as no Equity actors appear on-screen.

PRODUCER 3

Correct, the production itself falls under the code, no filming of any part. People get around this by doing interviews or slideshows with voice-overs. The pay only applies to AEA actors because it can be enforced. As for having a rehearsal where you may not call Equity Actors in for a night; I honestly don't know. AEA can be feisty so great idea to seek input. I wouldn't advise contacting AEA directly about these questions, they will watch you like a hawk. :)

PROCUER 3

From Equity: "No taping, filming or recording may be made, in whole
or in part, of any code production or rehearsal."

PRODUCER 4

Hmmm...looking at the Code again, I suppose I'm technically wrong. But I've never had an issue violating the code where non-Equity actors are concerned.

PRODUCER 4

The Showcase code is unclear on a lot of points, and if you contact Equity you're likely to just get the opinion of whoever you happen to be talking to. I had an actor demand his ten minute break during a tech run through of a [company name removed] show - nothing in the code about not getting their breaks, whether it's tech, dress or performance, which would mean no act could go longer than eighty minutes. I called Equity and they had to get back to me. They called me back the next day to say that I could do run-throughs within one week of opening as long as I provided breaks immediately before and after.

MF

It just strikes me as odd that Equity's code asserts any control at all over actors that are not Equity, by claiming jurisdiction over the production as a whole, so to speak.

PRODUCER 5

As a producer under the showcase code I've never had anything from AEA about non-AEA actors, but based on some stories I've heard from non-AEA actors working under showcase on productions other than my own, it wouldn't behoove AEA to include... info to certain producers... Some people can be just plain rude to their non-union actors and staff.

I did make inquiries some time ago about filming, and yes, what [name removed] and others have written above is true, if the production is under code you may not film even non-aea actors doing any part of the actual script on set in costume. That's why so many people do interviews or slide shows instead. If you want to write dialogue that compliments the play but is not in the script, you can shoot that, as long as it is not on the set or in the actual costumes.

PRODUCER 3

I have never thought of it that way until you brought this up but I guess it becomes "An Equity approved production" which follows basic guidelines and minimal "good" working conditions for the union actors. Several colleges follow the Equity rules even though they are non equity, simply because they are safe and fair practice, minus paying anyone, of course. They are saying if you want to use our actors, your entire production has to follow these rules. Sometimes it helps but inevitably it can get in the way. Remember every time you take a rehearsal break, the clock resets and you have another 55 or 80 minute stretch.

PRODUCER 4

It does seem odd to me that you can't record non-AEA actors, since the point is to protect the likenesses of their members. For our last show, the author wrote a special scene, a sort of prologue, that was not in the actual script, and we recorded that as a teaser.

But reading the rulebook, it doesn't look as if you need to abide by the rules regarding breaks and restrictions on rehearsal amounts for non-members (they apply to "Actors", which is defined at the start of the booklet as AEA-members only). I always treat non-members and members the same as far as breaks and fees and bios and all that, but I confess I did once start rehearsals a few days earlier than we were supposed to, using only the non-Equity actors.

PRODUCER 3

Keep in mind that one of the reasons for not allowing filming of any kind also has something to do with AEA actors not getting paid more. If you use non AEA to do "some filming" you have in a sense found the loophole that takes money out of an Equity actor's hand. Theoretically ,all people should be paid to promote a piece. When you see regional theatres filming scenes for promotion, those actors have been paid extra and their contact has been tweaked. Again, with the fair practice thing.

MF

It does strike me, though, as a sort of way for the union to assert control over non-union membership, over which it honestly should have no jurisdiction. That is to say: does Equity have the right to assert that non-Equity actors can't be filmed? Regardless of why they might want to assert that right?

PRODUCER 4

True, but theoretically all people should be paid to appear in a piece too, and that doesn't happen under the Showcase code. As far as AEA is concerned, Showcase productions only exist to, er, showcase the actors with the goal of getting them future paid work. Nowadays web videos are such an important part of promoting a production it kind of sucks that you're not allowed to do it. I would think, rather than banning it outright, they could include provisions ensuring that nobody involved gets paid more than the AEA members for it.

PRODUCER 4

Worst thing that can happen, I think, is they will not approve an Equity Showcase, or if they have already approved it, they can shut it down. They have and they do.

PRODUCER 4 ‎

@ PRODUCER 3, you are absolutely correct and 85 percent of Equity Actors agree.

Many of our AEA meetings are about just that. Actor unions get in the way as much as they help. AEA members try to allow our union to see the flaws and the provisions change but other unions hold other jurisdictions and well "it sucks."

PRODUCER 3

It does indeed suck. I'm a member myself, as an actor and a stage manager, but since I'm also a producer I've got those annoying asterisks on my card and can't attend membership meetings.

The code seems almost like it was designed specifically to hinder the development of original work. We're trying to produce a workshop production of our next show, but Equity doesn't really provide for any steps between a basic staged reading and a full production. I would love to use Equity actors, but that just may not be possible. Which means when it does go to a full production, we may very well keep the non-Equity actors and not bother with the Code. AEA actors have then missed out on, at the very least, the fee we pay actors and an opportunity to market themselves to agents and casting directors.

PRODUCER 4

One other thing, the union is watching out for the dues paying members. They are responsible to them. As far as everyone in a production being paid, I totally agree. I think that lies on the producer to "do the right thing." The union is not saying you shouldn't pay them. They are implying you should by saying you can't pay them more than an equity actor. Those producers that somehow muscle up cash for the entire team are the ones that keep everyone coming back not just the Equity actors. Low budget theatre is difficult but if ever possible all parties should be paid (something) even if it means splitting ticket sales. This is good practice, one that most would agree with.

PRODUCER 3

Entirely agree, I would never pay actors differently because of their union status. In fact, the code demands that nobody involved in the production gets paid more than AEA members - not designers, not directors, nobody. I hold to this, and lost a director because of it. She was shocked and offended that I wouldn't violate the Code to pay her more.

UPDATED: I was recently told that a company was informed by Equity that under the Showcase Code, the Press Agent couldn't be paid more than the actors. I'm sorry, but is it even possible to hire a press agent at that cost>

What is the purpose of that rule? To discourage producers from using the Showcase Code. It is, in effect, punitive.

So...I would like to invite a member of Actor's Equity in good standing, someone on the Showcase Code Committee, to actually explain these policies. I would be happy to give them this space to do so. Does anyone out there know who it is I need to contact to get someone on the record?