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.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Storytelling
Question: As a writer, a director, an actor...do you consider yourself, first, a storyteller? How important is narrative to you?
The Honest-To-God-True-Discount
For readers of the blog... a discount for tickets to Dan Trujillo's new play.
Horse Trade & elsewhere present:
The Honest-to-god-true Story Of The Atheist
Thursday, June 12, 2008 through Saturday, June 21, 2008
written by Dan Trujillo directed by Isaac Butler
Featuring: Abe Goldfarb, Daryl Lathon, Jennifer Gordon Thomas
Lighting Design: Sabrina Braswell
Costume Design: Sydney Maresca
Original Music By: David Hanlon
Filled with twists and turns, mole people, black market Viagra, speaking in tongues, caricatures, songs, soft-shoes and three maybe-miracles, The Honest-To-God-True Story of the Atheist tells the remarkable story of an atheist trying to disprove God's existence by defacing a local nativity scene. But did any of this really happen? And do the actors believe the story they're telling?
TWO WEEKENDS ONLY!
Thursday-Saturday, June 12-14th and 19th-21st
All shows at 8PM. Tickets are $18.00
Or, if you order them through smarttix and use the code AVBLOG you get $12.00 tickets! That's a whopping 33.3% savings!
Horse Trade & elsewhere present:
The Honest-to-god-true Story Of The Atheist
Thursday, June 12, 2008 through Saturday, June 21, 2008
written by Dan Trujillo directed by Isaac Butler
Featuring: Abe Goldfarb, Daryl Lathon, Jennifer Gordon Thomas
Lighting Design: Sabrina Braswell
Costume Design: Sydney Maresca
Original Music By: David Hanlon
Filled with twists and turns, mole people, black market Viagra, speaking in tongues, caricatures, songs, soft-shoes and three maybe-miracles, The Honest-To-God-True Story of the Atheist tells the remarkable story of an atheist trying to disprove God's existence by defacing a local nativity scene. But did any of this really happen? And do the actors believe the story they're telling?
TWO WEEKENDS ONLY!
Thursday-Saturday, June 12-14th and 19th-21st
All shows at 8PM. Tickets are $18.00
Or, if you order them through smarttix and use the code AVBLOG you get $12.00 tickets! That's a whopping 33.3% savings!
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Friday, May 23, 2008
If I want your opinion...
Isaac posts here about giving and receiving feedback/criticism. This springs from, in part, Don Hall's thoughts and these thoughts as well.
In Isaac's posting, he writes this:
I believe that if artists are interested in growing and developing they need to get used to "taking the hit", by which I mean accepting and listening to criticism when it is given. Sometimes "taking the hit" is confused with *agreeing with* all critiques offered. This would of course be deadly to our work. But even when it is a critique that to us is wildly off base, someone is still offering something: their opinion and impression of the work, and we should take what we can from it to help us.
I wanted to throw in my two-cents. Maybe I'll speak for someone else. Who can say?
Personally, I am one of those people that closely guards the way in which I take feedback, how I respond to feedback, and from whom I invite feedback. I may receive reviews and link to them, but you'll rarely hear me argue with or comment on the reviews in a public forum, like a blog. From friends and peers, though, feedback is an odd convergence of self-interested parties, and an open discussion can be just as corrosive to me, as a playwright, than one that is closed or cut off.
The assumption made in the above statement is that the growth of someone's art is a community activity, and by opening ourselves to different perspectives, we learn and grow. We become better by wrestling actively with outside perspectives, and it behooves us to be able to wrestle with even the most off-base perspectives.
I think there's a case to be made for that. I can't say that I see how it would help me as an artist to become better at listening to other people. There are certain feedback sources that I enjoy, celebrate, even seek out. There are certain individuals whom I trust to give me something useful. But those are very rare places.
That sounds, of course, preposterously self-protecting and suspicious of the motivations of my peers. It is, in fact, a way to maintain my own center and maintain the vision of my own journey. I don't want to write plays in relationship to the way in which the last one was received... I want to write plays that speak to something I feel is true or beautiful, with my own personal aesthetic fetishes expressed in their own idiosyncratic way, and then invite people to come and see what it is I've expressed. It is not a community activity in which I seek to become a better writer: it is an expression. The more pure that expression is, the more I am successful on my own terms. So a broad, open attitude towards feedback runs counter to that goal: it makes my work about discussion, about context, about satisfying others as opposed to simply speaking to them.
The other important factor here is that my audience is not, in fact, my peers. If your audience is YOUR peers, it might be worthwhile to think that over. I love and respect all the NY bloggers, and all the other writers out here banging their heads against the brick wall. But (and I'm sure many of you have experienced this) the most detached and clinical response ones work will receive will likely be from other writers or from peers. If I want to hit people emotionally, as opposed to do something "interesting," speaking to my peers is an uphill battle from the start.
Suffice to say, there are plenty who read this blog that I have asked directly for feedback. And I've certainly gone through that lovely dance of being reviewed all over the place. It's fun, it's part of the business, and we all need to come to our own peace with it.
As a writer, it is not understanding or a steel will or a sturdy self-image or the ability to grow that I most value: it is my own personal vision. Others may value my ability to receive their feedback with grace, and I certainly hope to have that skill. I may be able to learn something from others, but that's a process I have to control, and let no one's judgment of my ability to do so sway the way in which I act. First and foremost, I think of my own comfort and to reduce the number of voices that are talking to me as I try to work my way through a script.
In short: there will be countless points of view on my work, but only one of them is mine.
In Isaac's posting, he writes this:
I believe that if artists are interested in growing and developing they need to get used to "taking the hit", by which I mean accepting and listening to criticism when it is given. Sometimes "taking the hit" is confused with *agreeing with* all critiques offered. This would of course be deadly to our work. But even when it is a critique that to us is wildly off base, someone is still offering something: their opinion and impression of the work, and we should take what we can from it to help us.
I wanted to throw in my two-cents. Maybe I'll speak for someone else. Who can say?
Personally, I am one of those people that closely guards the way in which I take feedback, how I respond to feedback, and from whom I invite feedback. I may receive reviews and link to them, but you'll rarely hear me argue with or comment on the reviews in a public forum, like a blog. From friends and peers, though, feedback is an odd convergence of self-interested parties, and an open discussion can be just as corrosive to me, as a playwright, than one that is closed or cut off.
The assumption made in the above statement is that the growth of someone's art is a community activity, and by opening ourselves to different perspectives, we learn and grow. We become better by wrestling actively with outside perspectives, and it behooves us to be able to wrestle with even the most off-base perspectives.
I think there's a case to be made for that. I can't say that I see how it would help me as an artist to become better at listening to other people. There are certain feedback sources that I enjoy, celebrate, even seek out. There are certain individuals whom I trust to give me something useful. But those are very rare places.
That sounds, of course, preposterously self-protecting and suspicious of the motivations of my peers. It is, in fact, a way to maintain my own center and maintain the vision of my own journey. I don't want to write plays in relationship to the way in which the last one was received... I want to write plays that speak to something I feel is true or beautiful, with my own personal aesthetic fetishes expressed in their own idiosyncratic way, and then invite people to come and see what it is I've expressed. It is not a community activity in which I seek to become a better writer: it is an expression. The more pure that expression is, the more I am successful on my own terms. So a broad, open attitude towards feedback runs counter to that goal: it makes my work about discussion, about context, about satisfying others as opposed to simply speaking to them.
The other important factor here is that my audience is not, in fact, my peers. If your audience is YOUR peers, it might be worthwhile to think that over. I love and respect all the NY bloggers, and all the other writers out here banging their heads against the brick wall. But (and I'm sure many of you have experienced this) the most detached and clinical response ones work will receive will likely be from other writers or from peers. If I want to hit people emotionally, as opposed to do something "interesting," speaking to my peers is an uphill battle from the start.
Suffice to say, there are plenty who read this blog that I have asked directly for feedback. And I've certainly gone through that lovely dance of being reviewed all over the place. It's fun, it's part of the business, and we all need to come to our own peace with it.
As a writer, it is not understanding or a steel will or a sturdy self-image or the ability to grow that I most value: it is my own personal vision. Others may value my ability to receive their feedback with grace, and I certainly hope to have that skill. I may be able to learn something from others, but that's a process I have to control, and let no one's judgment of my ability to do so sway the way in which I act. First and foremost, I think of my own comfort and to reduce the number of voices that are talking to me as I try to work my way through a script.
In short: there will be countless points of view on my work, but only one of them is mine.
Light Posting
Hey everyone!
After closing When is a Clock, my good old money/support job became about twice as busy. So... I've been buried and my posting here has become, you might have noticed, less substantive and a little bit light.
Just a lull. Things will quiet down and I'll post here more often soon enough, I'm sure.
Hope you have a wonderful Memorial Day weekend.
After closing When is a Clock, my good old money/support job became about twice as busy. So... I've been buried and my posting here has become, you might have noticed, less substantive and a little bit light.
Just a lull. Things will quiet down and I'll post here more often soon enough, I'm sure.
Hope you have a wonderful Memorial Day weekend.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Just came home from the midnight showing. My assessment: pretty much a love letter to the series fans and made with a special appreciation for the 1950s and all the genre fiction that is associated with that era.
Had a blast!
Had a blast!
Monday, May 19, 2008
WALRUS ARTICLE
How could you not love this article and give it a hug and blow in its face? HOW COULD YOU NOT?
We Feel Fine
You really must check out this piece of internet artwork created by Jonathan Harris and Sep Kamvar. They describe it as "an exploration of human emotion on a global scale." It is an ever increasing database of human feelings.
Make sure to read the mission statement, and then click on the application.
It's called We Feel Fine.
Make sure to read the mission statement, and then click on the application.
It's called We Feel Fine.
Friday, May 16, 2008
GO GET 'EM
Now this is fantastic!
It's a rare thing to see a Democratic Nominee not put on his or her heels by Republican attacks. Obama is showing why he's going to be a great general election candidate, and why he's got the clear-minded thinking to be Commander in Chief.
"I will win."
Hell yes.
It's a rare thing to see a Democratic Nominee not put on his or her heels by Republican attacks. Obama is showing why he's going to be a great general election candidate, and why he's got the clear-minded thinking to be Commander in Chief.
"I will win."
Hell yes.
Pathetic
Bush goes begging to the Saudis, who flatly refuse him. Because we are the most powerful nation on Earth, except when we talk to our heroin dealer.
Question ...
How much impact do you feel endorsements have on your own decisions politically?
One thing I've noticed is that there's almost no one I know that feels particularly swayed by political endorsements. I assume I'm atypical (don't you?) but I probably am not. The value of endorsements seems entirely symbolic at this point, a way to send signals to Clinton, more than to the voters, for example.
If you were an Edwards supporter, does his endorsement of Obama push you in his direction? What about the Naral endorsement of Obama? Or Maya Angelou endorsing Clinton?
One thing I've noticed is that there's almost no one I know that feels particularly swayed by political endorsements. I assume I'm atypical (don't you?) but I probably am not. The value of endorsements seems entirely symbolic at this point, a way to send signals to Clinton, more than to the voters, for example.
If you were an Edwards supporter, does his endorsement of Obama push you in his direction? What about the Naral endorsement of Obama? Or Maya Angelou endorsing Clinton?
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Edwards to Endorse Obama
I guess John Edwards saw that he got 7% in WV and said "Enough is Enough! I'm out of the race!"
The media continues to be shocked by the obvious
CNN today writes:
"After enduring a week of political obituaries, Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign proved Tuesday that it still has some life."
Apparently, all the polls that had her winning West Virginia by a large margin, the idea that Obama conceded the race well before it took place, and the fact that his delegate lead and popular vote lead are entirely unaffected is, if not entirely lost on CNN, a buried lead to say the least. Because, for the love of God, ratings are high, drama sells, and the illusion of a horse race is more accurate than an accurate analysis of the news.
Now she can go on to win Kentucky (don't bother to be surprised when this happens) and he can win Oregon and, finally, it'll be over.
We'll have to endure a see-sawing narrative by the national news media, despite that fact that Obama has actually had a delegate and popular vote lead for...months. That Pennsylvania, even, did not seriously change that math. That the race wasn't over after North Carolina, it's been over since Obama out dueled Clinton on Super Tuesday with a small state strategy and then won a series of contests afterwards. That the race has been in a holding pattern for a very long time.
Clinton's campaign consists of four things: a complicit media, a math that includes Florida and Michigan (which she's only dedicated to now that they matter to her election), the superdelegates overcoming the popular vote (won't happen, and in fact, he's won the lead in Superdelegates) and Obama imploding (which he has entirely failed to do for her).
Winning West Virginia only changes the national news media's coverage, and only briefly. But inaccurate and misleading statements like the one that leads that article are precisely why so many Americans believe she still has a chance. The media is perpetuating this fantasy.
"After enduring a week of political obituaries, Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign proved Tuesday that it still has some life."
Apparently, all the polls that had her winning West Virginia by a large margin, the idea that Obama conceded the race well before it took place, and the fact that his delegate lead and popular vote lead are entirely unaffected is, if not entirely lost on CNN, a buried lead to say the least. Because, for the love of God, ratings are high, drama sells, and the illusion of a horse race is more accurate than an accurate analysis of the news.
Now she can go on to win Kentucky (don't bother to be surprised when this happens) and he can win Oregon and, finally, it'll be over.
We'll have to endure a see-sawing narrative by the national news media, despite that fact that Obama has actually had a delegate and popular vote lead for...months. That Pennsylvania, even, did not seriously change that math. That the race wasn't over after North Carolina, it's been over since Obama out dueled Clinton on Super Tuesday with a small state strategy and then won a series of contests afterwards. That the race has been in a holding pattern for a very long time.
Clinton's campaign consists of four things: a complicit media, a math that includes Florida and Michigan (which she's only dedicated to now that they matter to her election), the superdelegates overcoming the popular vote (won't happen, and in fact, he's won the lead in Superdelegates) and Obama imploding (which he has entirely failed to do for her).
Winning West Virginia only changes the national news media's coverage, and only briefly. But inaccurate and misleading statements like the one that leads that article are precisely why so many Americans believe she still has a chance. The media is perpetuating this fantasy.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Tony Awards
I am...not particularly interested in them. As usual. If you want to have a discussion about that sort of thing, try Playgoer. He's always got the good stuff.
When is a Clock Reviews
As I didn't do so as they came out, this post is to link to all the responses and reviews that When is a Clock gathered during its run.
The New York Times
Nytheatre.com
Time Out New York
Showbusiness Weekly
OffOffOnline
Curtain Up
That Sounds Cool
Abra Goes
SlowLearner
Anyhow, that's for the archives. Now... what's next?
The New York Times
Nytheatre.com
Time Out New York
Showbusiness Weekly
OffOffOnline
Curtain Up
That Sounds Cool
Abra Goes
SlowLearner
Anyhow, that's for the archives. Now... what's next?
Monday, May 12, 2008
The Stock Market as action movie device
I've now seen Speed Racer and Iron Man. Odd detail: both feature stock prices prominently as a plot device.
I remember how call options played prominently in Casino Royale's sequence at an airport.
And how Star Wars: Episode I begins with a trade dispute.
You half expect the new Indiana Jones to be called Indiana Jones and the Sub-Prime Credit Crisis.
I remember how call options played prominently in Casino Royale's sequence at an airport.
And how Star Wars: Episode I begins with a trade dispute.
You half expect the new Indiana Jones to be called Indiana Jones and the Sub-Prime Credit Crisis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
