When did the words "not appropriate" become accepted as truly critical? When someone burps in the middle of a wedding dinner, they have done something inappropriate. When a major public figure says, outloud, on National Television, that the death of all black children in the US would reduce the crime rate, it is worthy of undeniable shame and a full frontal attack on that kind of thinking. The President should say "Anyone who thinks this is an idiot, America. I hereby banish this man from my sight. Let him practice freedom of speech at a KKK rally." Then he should lead the nation is the "NaNa-Na-Na, NaNa-Na-Na, Hey, Hey, Hey, Goodbye" song and tell Bennett not let the door hit him in the ass on the way out.
Bush didn't say that of course. Why would he? He gave Bennett the "tsk, tsk." No wonder the people of the Ninth Ward in New Orleans think the levees weren't fixed because the Government wanted to kill poor blacks.
William Bennett, author of "The Book of Virtues" and a conservative bigwig (former Education Secretary) was trying to make an argument that the reason that crime is going down is because abortion is on the rise. He stated that the logic is "tricky" and that if every black baby in America was aborted, crime would go down.
I'm sure he thought he was just talking in broadly academic terms, and that he "meant to say" something else. That's really too bad. He didn't say "if you aborted everyone on the earth there would be no crime" (which is true); he said "if you abort all the black children there would be less crime." That's because he connects crime with black people. And maybe it's just that attitude that isn't exactly helping the African-American population dance a happy jig to capitalism's tune.
If Bush won't say it, I will:
Bennett, get your face out of Mein Kampf and go home and hold "The Book of Virtues" to your chest and cry. As long as you possibly can. We'll tell you when to stop.
About Me
- Freeman
- Matthew Freeman is a Brooklyn based playwright with a BFA from Emerson College. His plays include THE DEATH OF KING ARTHUR, REASONS FOR MOVING, THE GREAT ESCAPE, THE AMERICANS, THE WHITE SWALLOW, AN INTERVIEW WITH THE AUTHOR, THE MOST WONDERFUL LOVE, WHEN IS A CLOCK, GLEE CLUB, THAT OLD SOFT SHOE and BRANDYWINE DISTILLERY FIRE. He served as Assistant Producer and Senior Writer for the live webcast from Times Square on New Year's Eve 2010-2012. As a freelance writer, he has contributed to Gamespy, Premiere, Complex Magazine, Maxim Online, and MTV Magazine. His plays have been published by Playscripts, Inc., New York Theatre Experience, and Samuel French.
Friday, September 30, 2005
Southland Tales
I'm pretty sure that the Donnie Darko set didn't expect Richard Kelly's next movie to star The Rock. The cast, the story, the graphic novels (some of which may be apocryphal) all add up to a big question mark. Post apocalypic pro wrestler runs screaming through time in a bunny suit, chased by a vampire? Something like that? But, you know, backwards?
Either Richard Kelly is a visionary genius who can see the untapped, avant-garde potential of Buffy, The Rock, Miranda Richardson and Mandy Moore; or he's let the DVD sales of the Donnie Darko "Director's Cut" drive him out of his ever-living mind.
Either Richard Kelly is a visionary genius who can see the untapped, avant-garde potential of Buffy, The Rock, Miranda Richardson and Mandy Moore; or he's let the DVD sales of the Donnie Darko "Director's Cut" drive him out of his ever-living mind.
Thursday, September 29, 2005
Thom Yorke is Jesus on a Pogo Stick
I'm not better than anyone else: I love Radiohead. And yes, kids, I did like them since their very first album (Pablo Honey) and bought it on tape when I was younger. I didn't just jump on board when OK Computer came out.
Anyway, I think they're friggin' large writ pop Gods who bother to have brains. And their website has always been this ever formless piece of abstract art. I hadn't been back there in a while, though... after Hail to the Theif came out and was fine (brilliant for anyone else, good songs from them) I sort of said "Someday they'll have a new album" and left it at that.
Now there is a Radiohead Blog called "Dead Air Space" (linked above) that is pretty much what you'd expect and hope for. Sometimes getting what you want is nice. Band members besides Thom being snarky, pictures, hints at the titles of new songs ("Suit Doesn't Fit" "Pay Day") and Thom himself acting like someone has been poking him in the back with a stick that's shaped like the conscience of the human in a dark, miserable British attic since he hit puberty.
Lovely. Enjoy it. I've always wanted to write plays like these pricks write music.
Anyway, I think they're friggin' large writ pop Gods who bother to have brains. And their website has always been this ever formless piece of abstract art. I hadn't been back there in a while, though... after Hail to the Theif came out and was fine (brilliant for anyone else, good songs from them) I sort of said "Someday they'll have a new album" and left it at that.
Now there is a Radiohead Blog called "Dead Air Space" (linked above) that is pretty much what you'd expect and hope for. Sometimes getting what you want is nice. Band members besides Thom being snarky, pictures, hints at the titles of new songs ("Suit Doesn't Fit" "Pay Day") and Thom himself acting like someone has been poking him in the back with a stick that's shaped like the conscience of the human in a dark, miserable British attic since he hit puberty.
Lovely. Enjoy it. I've always wanted to write plays like these pricks write music.
Blumenthal on Karen Hughes
Check out the Salon.com article from Blumenthal on the terror that Karen Hughes brings every where she goes.
I was raised in a Christian household, and I will say with all sincerity that it never occured to me as a child that being Christian also meant being a bluthering, self-centered, isolated buffoon. The idea that this woman, with her utterly simplistic worldview, is speaking to foreign leaders is one that should send shivers down the spine of anyone with a sense of history.
Everything that the neo-conservatives have brought to the table in the Middle East would play like a greek tragedy, if the neo-conservatives had any good intentions. In order for it to be tragedy, I believe, we have to feel that something is lost for our hero. There is a mix of cynicism and pure childishness in our foreign policy: we combine a sense of moral correctness even as we kill thousands and speak in religious tones, and then scratch our heads when anyone implies they feel we're in a religious war. Then they blow themselves up, and we say "Islam is bad, it makes them blow themselves up."
Is it more morally justifiable to induce young people to kill others, than it is to induce them to kill themselves?
I was raised in a Christian household, and I will say with all sincerity that it never occured to me as a child that being Christian also meant being a bluthering, self-centered, isolated buffoon. The idea that this woman, with her utterly simplistic worldview, is speaking to foreign leaders is one that should send shivers down the spine of anyone with a sense of history.
Everything that the neo-conservatives have brought to the table in the Middle East would play like a greek tragedy, if the neo-conservatives had any good intentions. In order for it to be tragedy, I believe, we have to feel that something is lost for our hero. There is a mix of cynicism and pure childishness in our foreign policy: we combine a sense of moral correctness even as we kill thousands and speak in religious tones, and then scratch our heads when anyone implies they feel we're in a religious war. Then they blow themselves up, and we say "Islam is bad, it makes them blow themselves up."
Is it more morally justifiable to induce young people to kill others, than it is to induce them to kill themselves?
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Crystal Meth Makes a Hero
The above story is from the New York Times (non-select.) I'm sure some of you remember the woman who was held hostage a few months back in her home, only to calm her captor, famously by reading him "The Purpose-Driven Life" and treating him like a human being and appealing to the better nature of mankind. And all that jazz.
At the time, I viewed it as the rare story-of-the-day that was actually sort of heartening. Guy goes nuts, woman talks him down, he turns himself in.
Guess what? She gave him some of her Crystal Meth, and addiction she was trying to kick. She says she hasn't touched it since the episode. Is it easier to really enjoy some nice lady reading you some spiritually dogmatic crapola after she gives you some nice, soothing drugs? Quite likely.
I mean, she's brave and all. But it looks very much like God needed the help of "ice" to get his message across with these people. Not that there's no precendent for this type of thing. Alcohol gets people laid and cigarettes give you extra breaks at work. Why shouldn't Crystal get you out of a hostage crisis, and make you a national hero? It's a far more powerful drug.
At the time, I viewed it as the rare story-of-the-day that was actually sort of heartening. Guy goes nuts, woman talks him down, he turns himself in.
Guess what? She gave him some of her Crystal Meth, and addiction she was trying to kick. She says she hasn't touched it since the episode. Is it easier to really enjoy some nice lady reading you some spiritually dogmatic crapola after she gives you some nice, soothing drugs? Quite likely.
I mean, she's brave and all. But it looks very much like God needed the help of "ice" to get his message across with these people. Not that there's no precendent for this type of thing. Alcohol gets people laid and cigarettes give you extra breaks at work. Why shouldn't Crystal get you out of a hostage crisis, and make you a national hero? It's a far more powerful drug.
So Long, And Thanks For All The Fish
You can't make these things up. Dolphins on the loose.
Do you think they were just trying to fool us into giving them some weapons?
Do you think they were just trying to fool us into giving them some weapons?
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Questioning Michael Brown
The Bush administration and it's friends (former or otherwise) never cease to amaze me with their lack of shame. If you want further evidence that these are the bad guys, take a gander at how hard Michael Brown, testifying, is blaming the victim (Louisiana) for the rape (his incompetence.)
Was Louisiana just wearing a short skirt and drunk?
Was Louisiana just wearing a short skirt and drunk?
An amazing poem
My girlfriend shared this poem with me probably within the first few months we were together. This is just one of those days where I want to take her book collection out and show the world. But I think everyone who can, should read this poem. It's hilarious and perfect.
hate the people of this village
and would nail our hats
to our heads for refusing in their presence to remove them
or staple our hands to our foreheads
for refusing to salute them
if we did not hurt them first: mail them packages of rats,
mix their flour at night with broken glass.
We do this, they do that.
They peel the larynx from one of our brothers’ throats.
We devein one of their sisters.
The quicksand pits they built were good.
Our amputation teams were better.
We trained some birds to steal their wheat.
They sent to us exploding ambassadors of peace.
They do this, we do that.
We canceled our sheep imports.
They no longer bought our blankets.
We mocked their greatest poet
and when that had no effect
we parodied the way they dance
which did cause pain, so they, in turn, said our God
was leprous, hairless.
We do this, they do that.
Ten thousand (10,000) years, ten thousand
(10,000) brutal, beautiful years.
by Thomas Lux from SPLIT HORIZON, (Houghton Mifflin, 1994)
THE PEOPLE OF THE OTHER VILLAGE
hate the people of this village
and would nail our hats
to our heads for refusing in their presence to remove them
or staple our hands to our foreheads
for refusing to salute them
if we did not hurt them first: mail them packages of rats,
mix their flour at night with broken glass.
We do this, they do that.
They peel the larynx from one of our brothers’ throats.
We devein one of their sisters.
The quicksand pits they built were good.
Our amputation teams were better.
We trained some birds to steal their wheat.
They sent to us exploding ambassadors of peace.
They do this, we do that.
We canceled our sheep imports.
They no longer bought our blankets.
We mocked their greatest poet
and when that had no effect
we parodied the way they dance
which did cause pain, so they, in turn, said our God
was leprous, hairless.
We do this, they do that.
Ten thousand (10,000) years, ten thousand
(10,000) brutal, beautiful years.
by Thomas Lux from SPLIT HORIZON, (Houghton Mifflin, 1994)
Thursday, September 22, 2005
LOST
Ok, so I'm never one to write about television because, honestly, I don't really watch much Television. But I've been indulging this particular show, which is as much fun as a barrel of monkeys.
I was on a messageboard (yes, I did that, ok? what do you want? Blood?) and found the password to the Barcode on the above website. It's "TheIslandIsWaiting." But if you don't want an unsettling look into the mind of the LOST writers, and what is a potentially HUGE giveaway, don't read it. I'm thinking it's like early concept art in script form. But whatever that page means, you may hate yourself for reading it.
So that's that. Fun, fun. My guilty pleasure of late.
I was on a messageboard (yes, I did that, ok? what do you want? Blood?) and found the password to the Barcode on the above website. It's "TheIslandIsWaiting." But if you don't want an unsettling look into the mind of the LOST writers, and what is a potentially HUGE giveaway, don't read it. I'm thinking it's like early concept art in script form. But whatever that page means, you may hate yourself for reading it.
So that's that. Fun, fun. My guilty pleasure of late.
Texas Star Theatre
This is an e-mail I received from my former roommate Doug Goodrich. He noted that there's culture everywhere and people who attack theatre everywhere. Can't hurt for us to send them a good thought. Heck, who protests the people doing GREASE down the street? [All the bold is mine:]
PLEASE READ, EDIT, FORWARD, AND REACT
PLEASE READ, EDIT, FORWARD, AND REACT
Theatre People,
The new Texas Star Theatre is about to shut its doors. Not due to money or finances, but due to a small, vocal red state, conservative, ignorant, religious right-wing group that is very determined and very organized. This group has exhaustively mailed, emailed, phoned, met, conspired, complained, contacted, harassed, and have begun to break through the VIPs of Granbury that support this theatre. This support team taking the heat includes all the members of our Board of Directors, reporters, writers, newspaper publishers, government officials, school board members, merchant owners, and general audience members. Their biggest complaint, among many, is that the new Texas Star Theatre is promoting pornography, sex, bad language, vulgarities, obscenity, and encouraging the demoralization of an old historic town. It all started with the use of goddammit in Gypsy. It was used on this stage for the first time in 30 years and has made Texas Star Theatre a target of "Christian Values". These people don't intend to stop until the theatre is closed down and they have booted us out of town. Thomas Morrissey, an incredible new staff, and I have turned this dying theatre around and have brought a new and broader audience (that has broken box office records) to Granbury and has revived this theatre. Since we have taken over in June, we have had more people attend our shows than any other show in the last three years. We have quadrupled our season subscribers. We have made significant progress. We have just started turning a once melodrama driven community theatre into a world class regional theatre and for the first time; people under the age of 55 are packing into our seats. We opened our season with Gypsy (which has 4 goddammits in the script). We followed with Grease (which was the highest attended show in the last 3 years). Stars Over Texas, a musical revue of new music, was next and currently, we are in the middle of a four week run of The Boys Next Door. The Board of Directors and local supportive businesses have been bombarded with phone calls and emails demanding everyone in Granbury BOYCOTT the Texas Star Theatre. The ironic thing is that 80% of our audience is from out of town and we will not be significantly affected by a boycott. The Board of Directors is very concerned with our next show, the very popular I Love You, Youre Perfect, Now Change. The cast is here and we are in the middle of rehearsals. Although this show ran for 3 years in Dallas, a mere 50 miles from Granbury, the Christian Citizens of Granbury demand that we shut our theatre doors before the show opens on October 6th. This would cause many people, a staff of 15+, actors, designers, directors, etc., to lose their jobs and shrink the job market. I ask you from one passionate theatre artist to another to please email the list below (together or individually) and let them know you support our cause. Express to them that the
audience for theatre is diverse and larger than the local Baptist church. Please let each one of them know what theatre does on a larger scale, locally and nationally. We need your support.
audience for theatre is diverse and larger than the local Baptist church. Please let each one of them know what theatre does on a larger scale, locally and nationally. We need your support.
Just one email to let the locals know that you support the efforts of Texas Star Theatre and its commitment to bringing plays and musicals as written to an audience that craves theatre. That in no way our season should be misconstrued as pornographic or that a performance of Grease, or I Love You, You're Perfect... should ever be confused as an evening of sex on stage.
PLEASE FORWARD THIS EMAIL AND ASK EVERYONE AROUND THE COUNTRY AND AROUND THE WORLD TO HELP KEEP THIS THEATRE OPEN. IF YOU ARE IN TEXAS, THEN PURCHASE A TICKET TO I LOVE YOU, THE BOYS NEXT DOOR, OR GREASE (that has been remounted in Plano, Texas).
We here at Texas Star Theatre have worked too hard to have a thriving theatre in an upswing taken away from us because of a small minority that likes to bully community officials. Texas Star Theatre will not be censored. We will not become another target. I Love You, Youre Perfect... will not be SILENCED or SANITIZED. Locally, we will continue to fight for First Amendment Rights including freedom of expression and will not fall victim to bible beating, homophobic, racist, & sexist hypocrites. If we allow this to happen with the mildest of shows, how are we ever going to be able to produce great theatrical work in the
future? Thank you for your time.
future? Thank you for your time.
Peace,
Stephen Bishop Seely
Associate Artistic Director Texas Star Theatre
817-579-5529 ext. 2#
817-579-5529 ext. 2#
www.TexasStarTheatre.org
P.S. If you would like to learn more about what has been happening locally since we arrived in Granbury, please check out Texas Star Theatre at www.hcnews.com and go to http://www.hcnews.com/soundoff1.htm
P.S. If you would like to learn more about what has been happening locally since we arrived in Granbury, please check out Texas Star Theatre at www.hcnews.com and go to http://www.hcnews.com/soundoff1.htm
and write a supportive SOUND OFF that will get published in the paper.
Quick comments:
I'm going to be honest, if there is vocal minority and their ticket buyers are from out of town, I'm honestly not sure how this theater can be made to "close it's doors" without getting either charged with something or not paying it's rent. And frankly, it sounds a bit like someone's in the midst of an argument they don't quite know how to handle.
BUT I love Doug, and I think it can never hurt to lend support to the good guys. Even if this almost sounds...hilarious. I Love You, You're Perfect, Now Change is not exactly "fight for your rights" material. Anyone who is protesting GYPSY deserves a kick in the arse, on general principles.
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
First Act Of My New Play - Finished
It clocked in at about 62 pages total, but that's because I probably have too much of scene 1 and not enough of scene 2. Who can say? First Draft of a First Act makes me feel as if I've acheived at least, something. In the midst of working at my day job.
I should learn my lesson and not actually write about NOT doing my job while I'm on the job, in public.
If Steve, CEO and man who pays me, is reading this: I did, in fact, do the work I needed to do today.
Nonetheless, it's funny how with an absence of deadlines or a pay schedule, I have to come up with little motivations and milestones in order to make the play finish itself. All the impulse is internal, and so are the rewards. At least, during the process.
Onwards.
I should learn my lesson and not actually write about NOT doing my job while I'm on the job, in public.
If Steve, CEO and man who pays me, is reading this: I did, in fact, do the work I needed to do today.
Nonetheless, it's funny how with an absence of deadlines or a pay schedule, I have to come up with little motivations and milestones in order to make the play finish itself. All the impulse is internal, and so are the rewards. At least, during the process.
Onwards.
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Sharon Olds Letter to Laura Bush
Holy Crap is this beautiful. Poets are still the most sane people in the country, despite their reputations.
Theatre Ideas
A new blog dedicated to ideas. What a concept. Or, um, idea.
Hello there North Carolina. My grandmother died in North Carolina, so I have a soft spot for it.
Hello there North Carolina. My grandmother died in North Carolina, so I have a soft spot for it.
Monday, September 19, 2005
Times Select in Effect
Mixed feelings about Times Select, which kicks in today. Now the Editorials and Certain articles have this little orange icon next them, which indicates that you should get out your credit card.
The effect was, of course, I checked to see if I should just get a subscription to the friggin' paper. And I read Frank Rich and said to myself: "How will I link to this without paying?" I'm sure Nature will find a way.
Boy do I like to link to Frank Rich.
As I've said before, the internet will inevitably move to away from free content, especially content that is essentially reprinted content from a pay service. To be honest, I've often wondered if the Times wasn't losing itself money by providing the same content on its website that it does in the print edition. In some ways, its website provides more, with Audio Content etc. All of this is free, or was free, to its readers. While I'm sure it established the voice of the Times firmly on the internet and drove top quality ad sales... it inevitably hurt subscriptions of print volumes.
I have no numbers to support that assumption. It's just common sense.
That being said, there was already some play content on the Times website, but it was all archival. That means that the Times only revenue from readers was researchers and students looking for old articles. Otherwise it was all secondary, listing fees, advertising, etc. And by making the website's content as heightened as it was/is, it made the print edition look like a quaint product of yesteryear.
I'm not someone who thinks print needs to go the way of vinyl. I don't think that books, for example, will ever truly find a home online. But news sources have quandry...be up to date...but don't destroy your established presence in print.
I'm not sure if Times Select is a good move...but I understand it. It won't make the blogsphere and those of us who have come of tech-age in the yolk of peer-to-peer networks and shareware happy; but it might not be us that needs all of our needs met.
Will the internet simply become the new "television?" Will it become a product of buying a computer that gets you online, paying a level of monthly fee for access, like a cable bill? Some might say that television is more likely to begin to mirror the internet. You pay for your technology, your pay for your provider, and then you pick and choose, with your charge card, service you want to receive above and beyond basics.
Will it really be a bad thing that the consumer dollar directly decides what is produced, as opposed to ad sales and demographics? Will that affect content? Questions abound.
I just don't have the cash to read Krugman at work while I'm pretending to pay a great deal of attention to other things.
Perhaps the Times is just trying to increase my productivity. Not theirs.
Onwards.
The effect was, of course, I checked to see if I should just get a subscription to the friggin' paper. And I read Frank Rich and said to myself: "How will I link to this without paying?" I'm sure Nature will find a way.
Boy do I like to link to Frank Rich.
As I've said before, the internet will inevitably move to away from free content, especially content that is essentially reprinted content from a pay service. To be honest, I've often wondered if the Times wasn't losing itself money by providing the same content on its website that it does in the print edition. In some ways, its website provides more, with Audio Content etc. All of this is free, or was free, to its readers. While I'm sure it established the voice of the Times firmly on the internet and drove top quality ad sales... it inevitably hurt subscriptions of print volumes.
I have no numbers to support that assumption. It's just common sense.
That being said, there was already some play content on the Times website, but it was all archival. That means that the Times only revenue from readers was researchers and students looking for old articles. Otherwise it was all secondary, listing fees, advertising, etc. And by making the website's content as heightened as it was/is, it made the print edition look like a quaint product of yesteryear.
I'm not someone who thinks print needs to go the way of vinyl. I don't think that books, for example, will ever truly find a home online. But news sources have quandry...be up to date...but don't destroy your established presence in print.
I'm not sure if Times Select is a good move...but I understand it. It won't make the blogsphere and those of us who have come of tech-age in the yolk of peer-to-peer networks and shareware happy; but it might not be us that needs all of our needs met.
Will the internet simply become the new "television?" Will it become a product of buying a computer that gets you online, paying a level of monthly fee for access, like a cable bill? Some might say that television is more likely to begin to mirror the internet. You pay for your technology, your pay for your provider, and then you pick and choose, with your charge card, service you want to receive above and beyond basics.
Will it really be a bad thing that the consumer dollar directly decides what is produced, as opposed to ad sales and demographics? Will that affect content? Questions abound.
I just don't have the cash to read Krugman at work while I'm pretending to pay a great deal of attention to other things.
Perhaps the Times is just trying to increase my productivity. Not theirs.
Onwards.
Divorce
I've had it with dragging my heels on the new play. Time to make some real headway this week.
I wish that was interesting, but at least it feels like some sort of resolution.
Today, at my strange job, I have to request a death certificate from Wisconsin. I shall have to post exactly why at some point.
I wish that was interesting, but at least it feels like some sort of resolution.
Today, at my strange job, I have to request a death certificate from Wisconsin. I shall have to post exactly why at some point.
Friday, September 16, 2005
Proof Review in the New York Times
Clicking the link above will bring you to the New York Times review of David Auburn's Proof, now a film starring Gwyneth Paltrow and Anthony Hopkins. The review is unkind. Some might say, and accurately, that plays do not usually translate that effectively into films. And that's almost always true. My plays would make horrible films.
But some of this is accurate either way. I have never particularly been a fan of this play, and I think it speaks to the state of contemporary playwrighting that it is and was so heralded.
I saw the Broadway version of Proof after it had already won it's Pulitzer, with an understudy, a few years ago, with my Mother in tow. She liked it.
Productions of Proof, since then and probably earlier, are now staples of the regional theatre circuit. I have 2 actress friends that I can think of that have performed the leading role in Equity roles; and I'm sure there are far, far more happy actresses, actively not chewing the scenery in the mopey role as Catherine.
Obviously, Proof provides two top notch actresses the opportunity to be down in front, acting their hearts out, in a Pulitizer Prize winning, Tony Award winning, honest to goodness play. They also get to use the men, for once, as drapery. Surely there's something about that sort of play that's needed in an art that is infused with thousands of talented women, and roles for about One of them in any given play. So I see why Proof is so often produced, in this way. It's a small market for great women roles in well-regarded plays.
Proof is also entertaining, because it's a love story. Sure, there's some hoopla about math, but it never really factors into the drama the way Chaos Theory factors into Stoppard's Arcadia. There's also a twist about Catherine's father being a ghost, which is all well and good.
But if you think about plays from Albee, Mamet, Miller, O'Neill; they put Proof in high contrast. This play is light as a feather, stylistically inert and its subject is the ennui of a white, pretty genius. And the reason that our characters are mathmeticians is to ensure the title is a pun. I'm not saying that this play is incompetent, unwatchable or unentertaining. It's just not what I assumed would win a Pulitzer. A playwrighting award in Wisconsin maybe. But not the Pulitizer.
Who are the Albee's, Mamets, Millers, and O'Neills of today? When David Auburn wins the Pulitzer Prize with Proof, are the pickings so slim? I know that this seems silly to bring up so many years later. I'll use the film as my excuse. It's my blog, after all.
Onwards.
But some of this is accurate either way. I have never particularly been a fan of this play, and I think it speaks to the state of contemporary playwrighting that it is and was so heralded.
I saw the Broadway version of Proof after it had already won it's Pulitzer, with an understudy, a few years ago, with my Mother in tow. She liked it.
Productions of Proof, since then and probably earlier, are now staples of the regional theatre circuit. I have 2 actress friends that I can think of that have performed the leading role in Equity roles; and I'm sure there are far, far more happy actresses, actively not chewing the scenery in the mopey role as Catherine.
Obviously, Proof provides two top notch actresses the opportunity to be down in front, acting their hearts out, in a Pulitizer Prize winning, Tony Award winning, honest to goodness play. They also get to use the men, for once, as drapery. Surely there's something about that sort of play that's needed in an art that is infused with thousands of talented women, and roles for about One of them in any given play. So I see why Proof is so often produced, in this way. It's a small market for great women roles in well-regarded plays.
Proof is also entertaining, because it's a love story. Sure, there's some hoopla about math, but it never really factors into the drama the way Chaos Theory factors into Stoppard's Arcadia. There's also a twist about Catherine's father being a ghost, which is all well and good.
But if you think about plays from Albee, Mamet, Miller, O'Neill; they put Proof in high contrast. This play is light as a feather, stylistically inert and its subject is the ennui of a white, pretty genius. And the reason that our characters are mathmeticians is to ensure the title is a pun. I'm not saying that this play is incompetent, unwatchable or unentertaining. It's just not what I assumed would win a Pulitzer. A playwrighting award in Wisconsin maybe. But not the Pulitizer.
Who are the Albee's, Mamets, Millers, and O'Neills of today? When David Auburn wins the Pulitzer Prize with Proof, are the pickings so slim? I know that this seems silly to bring up so many years later. I'll use the film as my excuse. It's my blog, after all.
Onwards.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
