If there is anything you could blame for my involvement in the theater it would have to be "Annie". Every redheaded actress I know has her "Annie" story. Every one of us outgoing reds figured we WERE Annie. We were all spirited, charming and resourceful! Clearly it was a role made for only me (us!). The stories only take two tracks, either it was her crowning achievement or the role that got away. For me, it was the role that got away.
I was too old to play Annie when the opportunity finally came to my small midwestern town. I auditioned anyway and I did not get a part, but I was offered a chance to create fairy tales from improvised structures with other too-old-for-Annie theater geeks for the summer. That was clearly that. It was a way for me to write out loud and get immediate satisfaction as opposed to the hours I had previously spent plunking away on my mother's electric typewriter working on short stories that only my best friend would read.
I was never really the musical theater type. I can sing but I'm not showy. As a general rule, musicals aren't what floats my boat. With that being said, I can't help but find it fascinating that of the top three theatrical events that have most influenced me, two of them were musicals. The first being "Annie" and the second being a musical about the lynching of 4 black men in Duluth, MN called "The Last Minstrel Show". I've been raving about that show for over 15 years. It completely changed the way I looked at the theater.
"The Last Minstrel Show" was produced at Penumbra Theater in St. Paul, MN. I spent the entire performance with my jaw dragging on the floor beneath my seat. The black cast performed in black face for a white, liberal Minnesota crowd. They made you comfortable with racist humor, let you laugh at it and then pulled the rug out from underneath you and showed you what you just did. It was eye opening. It made me see that I did not understand as much about the world as I thought I did. This is a huge feat to pull off with a cocky teenager, but I left the theater with that heady feeling of having learned a little too much about myself and the world I lived in. Damn that was good.
Every once in a while I think about auditioning for a musical. For laughs, I guess. Of course, now that I am older I keep thinking that the only musical role for me would be Miss Hannigan. "Little Girls" is a song that I began to truly understand as I spent two years as a stay at home mother. Boy, little brats can just burrow under your skin! Every time I see Carol Burnett do it in the film version I can't help but get a little twitchy wishing I could have a crack at it. Of course, I've only seen auditions for that role twice in the last few years. Both times I've been visibly pregnant. Damn. That just won't do! It seems that "Annie" will be forever out of my reach and I have no hopes of ever being in "The Last Minstrel Show". That would just be wrong.
Of course, there is a musical in the works with Playful Substance- believe it or not. It won't be as fluffy as "Annie" and I doubt it will be as confrontational as "The Last Minstrel Show" and I probably won't be IN it. This is all just as well, I suppose. Every time I tell someone I will be working on a musical I laugh involuntarily. I just can't believe it. It doesn't seem to fit somehow- which, I suppose, is precisely the reason to do it.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Why A Happily Married Woman Should Not Listen to Sticky Fingers
I'm guessing that any woman over the age of let's say 28 has received a mixed tape (CD for the young 'uns) at some point in their dating careers. I'm willing to bet that at least one of those gifts has contained a track from The Rolling Stones "Sticky Fingers". After all, what teenage boy can resist wooing his love with "Wild Horses"? And he shouldn't resist. It works. Well, it worked on me. Some of the time.
There are quite a few recordings that I find are dangerously soaked with the memories of other men. Even men I didn't particularly fancy, but as I grow older and slightly wider I now fancy the memory of being fancied. I have never said I wasn't vain.
The musicians in my danger zone such as Simon and Garfunkel, The Allman Brothers, Alice Cooper, The Cure, Jefferson Airplane's "Surrealistic Pillow" in particular, betray that I was clearly a midwestern gal escaping the sticky horrors of early 90's pop by tuning in to classic rock stations on my crappy car stereo. When your tape deck doesn't work the classic rock station can be your only friend, until you get that cigarette lighter adapter for your crappy CD player. The first time I heard Tom Waits' "Blue Valentines" I was in a car. Thank god I wasn't the one driving or I would have had a seriously embarrassing accident - "Wrong Side of the Road" is still the HOTTEST song ever recorded as far as my pants are concerned. I still don't listen to that in the car. The explanation for the resulting injuries would be too humiliating to endure.
I don't drive much anymore. Living in Brooklyn means that driving is not really necessary. However, I do crave the joys of late night drives to distant destinations with a lover drifting off to sleep in the passenger seat. Which brings me back to "Sticky Fingers". I cannot listen to "Moonlight Mile" without feeling the hum of the engine, the lazy warmth of a stray hand on my thigh and the taste and smell of a cigarette dangling from my mouth as the lines on the highway slide beneath the car in time with the swell of strings. There is always the possibility of paradise at the next off ramp. Road weary bliss chilling in an ice bucket at the Econo Lodge with the smell of chlorine, damp siding and him.
Do you see what I mean? A happily married woman should not listen to "Sticky Fingers".
There are quite a few recordings that I find are dangerously soaked with the memories of other men. Even men I didn't particularly fancy, but as I grow older and slightly wider I now fancy the memory of being fancied. I have never said I wasn't vain.
The musicians in my danger zone such as Simon and Garfunkel, The Allman Brothers, Alice Cooper, The Cure, Jefferson Airplane's "Surrealistic Pillow" in particular, betray that I was clearly a midwestern gal escaping the sticky horrors of early 90's pop by tuning in to classic rock stations on my crappy car stereo. When your tape deck doesn't work the classic rock station can be your only friend, until you get that cigarette lighter adapter for your crappy CD player. The first time I heard Tom Waits' "Blue Valentines" I was in a car. Thank god I wasn't the one driving or I would have had a seriously embarrassing accident - "Wrong Side of the Road" is still the HOTTEST song ever recorded as far as my pants are concerned. I still don't listen to that in the car. The explanation for the resulting injuries would be too humiliating to endure.
I don't drive much anymore. Living in Brooklyn means that driving is not really necessary. However, I do crave the joys of late night drives to distant destinations with a lover drifting off to sleep in the passenger seat. Which brings me back to "Sticky Fingers". I cannot listen to "Moonlight Mile" without feeling the hum of the engine, the lazy warmth of a stray hand on my thigh and the taste and smell of a cigarette dangling from my mouth as the lines on the highway slide beneath the car in time with the swell of strings. There is always the possibility of paradise at the next off ramp. Road weary bliss chilling in an ice bucket at the Econo Lodge with the smell of chlorine, damp siding and him.
Do you see what I mean? A happily married woman should not listen to "Sticky Fingers".
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Why Some People Aren't Anywhere
I know perfectly well why I am not rich and famous. My priorities are all wrong. I have never had enough hunger, drive (or self-esteem) to go out and hunt down opportunities, agents, press, etc. It has taken me a long time to come to terms with that. As an actor I should crave these things and search them out like a crazed, half-starved animal. I never have. I never will. I am quite content to do my little projects and hope that people will come and enjoy themselves. I know I won't get far with this method. I've spent a lot of time feeling inadequate about it, but my world view has expanded enough to allow me to appreciate small contributions to life. It's the little things, right?
One thing I do feel good about is that I am dependable. Sometimes a little too dependable, but regardless, my word is my bond. I am professional. It amazes me how many people in this business aren't. A lot of these people are the crazed, half-starved animals that I am not. I don't see how they can afford to be so flaky and so driven at the same time. Maybe this is why we are all still toiling away in the trenches of off-off (off!) Broadway venues.
I've been working as a producer on this one night event and I am floored to have people back out 3 days before the show. Why? Well, I've gotten plenty of excuses. Some of them seeming somewhat reasonable until you begin to ask "Why couldn't you have backed out three weeks ago?" or "There are 7 people in your project, why can't someone else pick up the slack?". I can only assume that is because the work has not been done.
I've fielded freak out phone calls about dates when people haven't even consulted their calendars. I've had people ask me to just pick up and move the entire project to another night 2 weeks in the future- forget the fact that space is hard enough to come by in this city and that all of the publicity has already gone out and we are on a budget of exactly $0.00. Yeah, you don't have enough time. Welcome to the theatre, my friends. You will always be strapped for time. The show will never be fully written. Your show will never feel "good enough". Yet, my experience is that you just have to put your head down and DO IT. No matter the outcome, you'll always be glad you did. And if circumstances prohibit you from participating- show good form and keep others abreast of the situation so you can exit graciously.
It isn't just this particular project. I've been experiencing this lack of professionalism and courtesy in so many other areas of my life as well. Recently I had someone who hired me for a project caution my enthusiasm by saying, "Don't go overboard. I don't want this to get TOO successful". What? Who says that? I've witnessed people using intimidation and passive aggressive guilt tactics to goad their employees and contractors into taking over projects so they don't have to take responsibility for a particular task. It blows me away that I could live in such a competitive environment and still find people who behave this way. Although, to be truthful, when I've been in less competitive environments I've experienced more professionalism.
I am by no means perfect. After all, I'm clearly ticked about recent developments and am venting on a blog. That is, admittedly, a sad state of affairs. I wonder if I kicked things up a notch and was at a defferent level if I would find more of the same? Or would people behave differently? It seems an awfully weird time in my life to be considering any kind of advancement. Someone once told me that genius rarely surrounds itself with inferiors. People who are true successes work to surround themselves with people who not only match their abilities but exceed them. It gives them a challenge.
Perhaps I underestimate myself and I need to surround myself with people who are much smarter than I. Maybe that is what my hunger should be for- not to validate myself with the trappings of "success" or "fame" or "fortune", but to challenge my abilities and to grow.
Of course, the person who told me that genius thing... she was a total crack pot.
One thing I do feel good about is that I am dependable. Sometimes a little too dependable, but regardless, my word is my bond. I am professional. It amazes me how many people in this business aren't. A lot of these people are the crazed, half-starved animals that I am not. I don't see how they can afford to be so flaky and so driven at the same time. Maybe this is why we are all still toiling away in the trenches of off-off (off!) Broadway venues.
I've been working as a producer on this one night event and I am floored to have people back out 3 days before the show. Why? Well, I've gotten plenty of excuses. Some of them seeming somewhat reasonable until you begin to ask "Why couldn't you have backed out three weeks ago?" or "There are 7 people in your project, why can't someone else pick up the slack?". I can only assume that is because the work has not been done.
I've fielded freak out phone calls about dates when people haven't even consulted their calendars. I've had people ask me to just pick up and move the entire project to another night 2 weeks in the future- forget the fact that space is hard enough to come by in this city and that all of the publicity has already gone out and we are on a budget of exactly $0.00. Yeah, you don't have enough time. Welcome to the theatre, my friends. You will always be strapped for time. The show will never be fully written. Your show will never feel "good enough". Yet, my experience is that you just have to put your head down and DO IT. No matter the outcome, you'll always be glad you did. And if circumstances prohibit you from participating- show good form and keep others abreast of the situation so you can exit graciously.
It isn't just this particular project. I've been experiencing this lack of professionalism and courtesy in so many other areas of my life as well. Recently I had someone who hired me for a project caution my enthusiasm by saying, "Don't go overboard. I don't want this to get TOO successful". What? Who says that? I've witnessed people using intimidation and passive aggressive guilt tactics to goad their employees and contractors into taking over projects so they don't have to take responsibility for a particular task. It blows me away that I could live in such a competitive environment and still find people who behave this way. Although, to be truthful, when I've been in less competitive environments I've experienced more professionalism.
I am by no means perfect. After all, I'm clearly ticked about recent developments and am venting on a blog. That is, admittedly, a sad state of affairs. I wonder if I kicked things up a notch and was at a defferent level if I would find more of the same? Or would people behave differently? It seems an awfully weird time in my life to be considering any kind of advancement. Someone once told me that genius rarely surrounds itself with inferiors. People who are true successes work to surround themselves with people who not only match their abilities but exceed them. It gives them a challenge.
Perhaps I underestimate myself and I need to surround myself with people who are much smarter than I. Maybe that is what my hunger should be for- not to validate myself with the trappings of "success" or "fame" or "fortune", but to challenge my abilities and to grow.
Of course, the person who told me that genius thing... she was a total crack pot.
Friday, January 04, 2008
Freedom to Fascism
Due to Michael Moore's success and the rise of the documentary as popular entertainment, I have learned to approach new documentaries with some serious trepidation. Unfortunately, "Freedom to Fascism" validated every last one of my nuveau doc fears.
I am a very critical viewer of entertainment. Over the years I've also become a skeptical consumer of "investigative reporting". I know enough about narrative construction to be able to see when I'm being manipulated and I don't appreciate it.
Let's get this straight. Michael Moore is the only Michael Moore we have. I've stated my views on his work before. It is not documentary- it is cinematic essay. His style is unique, as is his personality. I find him entertaining. I find his reporting to be challenging but not without its rather significant deficeincies. His work should be viewed with a critical eye, but it is always skillfully and humorously assembled. Aaron Russo's "Freedom to Fascism" tries to follow the angry fat man model, but he has neither the cinematic skill nor the humor of Michael Moore.
First off, Russo spends the first half of the film trying to shoot down the 16th Amendment to the Constitution claiming that it was never fully ratified and therefore should be null and void. He also makes the argument that even if said amendment were legal that the Constitutional definition of the word "income" is suspect and that it would not and should not apply to personal wages. Through all of this, Russo throws many quotes and comments in text upon the screen to support his points. Not once does he ever show us the 16th Amendment. Wouldn't you think that would be important to share with your audience? Especially since Russo presumes his audience needs to be schooled on so many other aspects of the law, wouldn't the 16th Amendment be something he should explore in depth? At the very least using a reading of the amendment to provide us with some context? The brief claim he makes about the amendment's apparent lack of ratification by the states is not explored. It is simply stated as fact. I'm sorry, Mr. Russo, but I need to know how it became the 16th Amendment without being ratified. I'm not saying you're lying. I'm saying that a critical point in your story is missing.
Throughout the film, Russo and his interview subjects keep repeating the phrase, "Show us the law.". This refers to the federal law that would require us to pay tax on our personal income. I do, indeed, find this intriguing, especially since no one in the documentary is ever shown a law. I do think this is, legitimately, something for us to demand as a nation. However, Russo's interviews never feel complete. It seems as if Russo becomes impatient with the length of the interviews (perhaps owing to his less than engaging interviewing style) and rather that playing them out he simply freezes the frame and narrates as he pleases over the frozen image. Russo talks a lot in this film and his tone is alarmist.
The editing in the film is sloppy. Which surprises this viewer as Russo spends a lot of time building his own credibility by referring to himself a few times as "...an award winning filmmaker". I am certain he is. Just not for this film. The music is heavy handed and the end of the film consists of an angry diatribe written by Russo that the audience simply reads off the screen. Seems a little lazy and preachy to me. This is not documentary. This is an ineloquent Op-Ed piece written by an angry man.
I have nothing against Russo's anger- except for the fact that it makes for a poor documentary. I get quite frustrated with artists who complain out of one side of their mouths that the Bush Administration is fear mongering and using propaganda to sell the American people a bill of goods and then they go right out and use the same tactics to sell their own point of view. That kind of "reporting" shows absolutely no respect for the intelligence of its audience. Couldn't a more traditional documentary about the process of ratifying the 16th Amendment stir an audience to question? Couldn't an investigative examination of how the Fed really works give us an appropriate wake up call? Many of us don't know how it works and I am sure we would be shocked to discover the facts in black and white. If you agree with Russo that a more sensationalist approach is required to get the peoples' attention, then I have to sadly shake my head. That would only mean that we accept that assessment of our collectively low intelligence. Personally, I think we can do better. I think we could have more coherent arguments to the cause. Instead we are left with what feels like a slapdash fifth grade book report assembled the night before it was due.
I was not given enough actual information in this film. I was yelled at, spoken down to, preached at, and then given a website to visit. Presumably so I could take further abuse. While I agree that we need to demand, as a nation, some serious reform and the return of our individual liberties and rights to privacy, I do not believe this film was an effective tool in that fight. This tool was a piece of crap designed to herd sheep.
I'm no sheep. Give me some credible reporting.
I am a very critical viewer of entertainment. Over the years I've also become a skeptical consumer of "investigative reporting". I know enough about narrative construction to be able to see when I'm being manipulated and I don't appreciate it.
Let's get this straight. Michael Moore is the only Michael Moore we have. I've stated my views on his work before. It is not documentary- it is cinematic essay. His style is unique, as is his personality. I find him entertaining. I find his reporting to be challenging but not without its rather significant deficeincies. His work should be viewed with a critical eye, but it is always skillfully and humorously assembled. Aaron Russo's "Freedom to Fascism" tries to follow the angry fat man model, but he has neither the cinematic skill nor the humor of Michael Moore.
First off, Russo spends the first half of the film trying to shoot down the 16th Amendment to the Constitution claiming that it was never fully ratified and therefore should be null and void. He also makes the argument that even if said amendment were legal that the Constitutional definition of the word "income" is suspect and that it would not and should not apply to personal wages. Through all of this, Russo throws many quotes and comments in text upon the screen to support his points. Not once does he ever show us the 16th Amendment. Wouldn't you think that would be important to share with your audience? Especially since Russo presumes his audience needs to be schooled on so many other aspects of the law, wouldn't the 16th Amendment be something he should explore in depth? At the very least using a reading of the amendment to provide us with some context? The brief claim he makes about the amendment's apparent lack of ratification by the states is not explored. It is simply stated as fact. I'm sorry, Mr. Russo, but I need to know how it became the 16th Amendment without being ratified. I'm not saying you're lying. I'm saying that a critical point in your story is missing.
Throughout the film, Russo and his interview subjects keep repeating the phrase, "Show us the law.". This refers to the federal law that would require us to pay tax on our personal income. I do, indeed, find this intriguing, especially since no one in the documentary is ever shown a law. I do think this is, legitimately, something for us to demand as a nation. However, Russo's interviews never feel complete. It seems as if Russo becomes impatient with the length of the interviews (perhaps owing to his less than engaging interviewing style) and rather that playing them out he simply freezes the frame and narrates as he pleases over the frozen image. Russo talks a lot in this film and his tone is alarmist.
The editing in the film is sloppy. Which surprises this viewer as Russo spends a lot of time building his own credibility by referring to himself a few times as "...an award winning filmmaker". I am certain he is. Just not for this film. The music is heavy handed and the end of the film consists of an angry diatribe written by Russo that the audience simply reads off the screen. Seems a little lazy and preachy to me. This is not documentary. This is an ineloquent Op-Ed piece written by an angry man.
I have nothing against Russo's anger- except for the fact that it makes for a poor documentary. I get quite frustrated with artists who complain out of one side of their mouths that the Bush Administration is fear mongering and using propaganda to sell the American people a bill of goods and then they go right out and use the same tactics to sell their own point of view. That kind of "reporting" shows absolutely no respect for the intelligence of its audience. Couldn't a more traditional documentary about the process of ratifying the 16th Amendment stir an audience to question? Couldn't an investigative examination of how the Fed really works give us an appropriate wake up call? Many of us don't know how it works and I am sure we would be shocked to discover the facts in black and white. If you agree with Russo that a more sensationalist approach is required to get the peoples' attention, then I have to sadly shake my head. That would only mean that we accept that assessment of our collectively low intelligence. Personally, I think we can do better. I think we could have more coherent arguments to the cause. Instead we are left with what feels like a slapdash fifth grade book report assembled the night before it was due.
I was not given enough actual information in this film. I was yelled at, spoken down to, preached at, and then given a website to visit. Presumably so I could take further abuse. While I agree that we need to demand, as a nation, some serious reform and the return of our individual liberties and rights to privacy, I do not believe this film was an effective tool in that fight. This tool was a piece of crap designed to herd sheep.
I'm no sheep. Give me some credible reporting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
