For a very short while in my twneties I studied Anne Bogart's Viewpoints. As with any method of working, the methodology is always colored by the teacher who teaches it. I enjoyed my brief study, but lo these many years later I retained one key sentence.
The source of all creation is terror.
I'm sure I am paraphrasing and paraphrasing it horribly. I am most likely mangling the concept and missing the major point of her work. I know that I could simply walk to my bookshelf and look it up properly, but in a way I really don't want to. Because, I am holding on to this sentence as a life preserver. I am hoping that it is true because, if it is true, I am bound to be in the thick of the most creative period in my life to date.
Although it isn't the terror that is causing this bout of creative energy in my life. It seems more a biproduct than a cause. The more I create or committ to create, the more terrified I am. What if I can't balance my creative life and my family life? What if I have to choose between the two- again? What if I get rejected? Can I handle it? Will I be like Ed Wood, toiling faithfully in a form for which I've no real aptitude? Or will I be like countless others who quit because they hit 30 and no longer cared for the stuggle?
To be sure, heading back into performing in my 30's is a bit more frightening than it was after my acting hiatus between 18 and 21. After all, I was 21 and pretty cute. Now I'm 31, still cute, but I feel a bit worn and cuteness does not truly become me any longer. If I don't know what to do with myself, how can I expect anyone else to utilize my skills?
Not to mention that this giant chip on my shoulder has never served me in the business. I am not a product. I cannot be bought or sold. Every time that I have ever worked on something in which I had less than 100% faith, I felt miserable. I felt sick. Now, 100% faith does not necessarily mean that I believed the work WAS good. It is that I believed it COULD be good. There's a difference. It was the difference between feeling my worth and feeling used. I may be a little too proud-too arrogant- for this kind of work. And yet, here I am.
I am in the midst of some pre-production efforts for my first stage appearance in 5 years. The nuerotic episodes are worse now than they were for my last "comeback". Mostly because my circumstances have gotten, understandably, more complex. I feel like I am gambling with my family's future as opposed to the gambling I did then with my fledgling romantic relationship. My husband, (then boyfriend) supported me then and he supports me now but my fear clouds my self confidence. Fear clouds my ability to BE supported. My teachers always warned me to work smart, not hard. Well, unfortunately I do not value that which comes easily to me. I may have to tear myself apart to make this one stick.
But I would not allow this from any of my students. I would not allow this from any of my friends. This is NOT the way to approach a new step in one's creative career. So I must learn to fight the fear. I must accept it and disspell it. The first step in this process is to acknowledge the fear. To give it a name and deny it access to my soul. Then I need to provide myself with evidence of my own ability and build myself up again.
My fear is failure.
Now on to step two.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Friday, October 06, 2006
Radical Moderation
My Brother has often referred to himself as a Radical Moderate, although he's really a Libertarian in Republican clothing. But that is neither here nor there. What is of importance in this post is just how much I like the phrase Radical Moderate. There's a movement that has never happened in the history of man. Maybe it's time. Maybe I'm crazy for thinking anyone would follow that banner.
You can spin yarns of Utopian societies and the ultimate freedom of mankind but I'm pretty cynical about all of that. I do not believe that "freedom" is the natural state of man. Why do I think that? Because so few of us actually choose it. We think we want it, but when faced with actual freedom most of us choose the opposite. Because freedom offers great opportunities, but those opportunities often come at a price that most of us are unwilling to pay. The price is often fear and uncertainty. Most people would choose the evil they know over the joy they don't know. As a species we tend to cling to the predictable while only the most adventurous and self destructive among us dabble in the unknown. And even then, most of us take a guide who has been there before.
For example, how many of us stay in jobs that are unfulfilled, that control our choices and dictate our daily lives? Some of us stay to provide our lives with structure. Some of us stay because we enjoy the money. Some of us stay because the alternative is just too frightening. Will we be able to afford our homes? Will we be able to pay our bills? Will we be able to feed ourselves and our families? Some of us stay in relationships that demean us. Some of us sit idly by while others make decisions about our communities and our government. Some of us just accept things as they are because we cannot conceive of an alternative. We willingly choose servitude, because in servitude we get to spread out responsibility. We get to delegate ownership of problems to someone else. The natural state of man is to seek safety and true freedom is not safe.
This may sound completely depressing, but I find it quite liberating. I am not saying that freedom is unattainable therefore we must give in to the machine. In fact, I am advocating the opposite. I believe that, within form there is freedom. At least within a creative sense. We need to fully understand the rules and the structures before we can break them and change perception. That is how it has always been done. That is how great movements always WILL be done.
I believe in the power of art to transform. I believe in the power of art to communicate. But I also believe that, in a polarized society like the one we have today, so called political art is so divisive that it only ends up preaching to the choir. I once read an article about a director who advocated the idea that only showing one side of any issue (the liberal side) is okay because the poor, downtrodden liberals need an outlet through which they can lick their collective wounds. To that I say BULLSHIT.
No. No. No, no no no no and NO.
If you believe in something, I believe you need to struggle to challenge that belief. Art should be on the front lines of the struggle to challenge not just our audience but ourselves. See the other side. Dig into it. Understand it. Be a part of it. Empathize with it. Are you worried you'll be swayed? That you'll change your position? Well. Then maybe you should. Then you will learn. You will grow. That is important for you as an artist, as a human being and it is vital for your audience. I know it is hard, but you must forever try not to have the answers. Art should be about questions not agendas. Express yourself. Express your personal feelings and beliefs, but never stop challenging them. Never. Be uncertain. Walk proudly beneath a banner that proclaims "I JUST DON'T KNOW"! If you really want to change the world then you need to communicate effectively in a way that does not invalidate those who experience the world differently than you.
This does not mean you should not offend or shock anyone. It means that you should do so judiciously. There is no law of God or Man that states "Thou Shalt Not Be Offended"! But this should come from an honest and questioning position, not as a form of attack. Because, quite honestly, who the hell are you to tell people what to think? Just like, who the hell am I to advocate public questioning? No one. Clearly, I am no one.
Maybe it isn't moderation that I am seeking. Maybe I am looking for Radical Understanding. You may be searching for something else. Perhaps my viewpoint doesn't necessarily apply to you. But what if it does?
It never hurts to ask.
You can spin yarns of Utopian societies and the ultimate freedom of mankind but I'm pretty cynical about all of that. I do not believe that "freedom" is the natural state of man. Why do I think that? Because so few of us actually choose it. We think we want it, but when faced with actual freedom most of us choose the opposite. Because freedom offers great opportunities, but those opportunities often come at a price that most of us are unwilling to pay. The price is often fear and uncertainty. Most people would choose the evil they know over the joy they don't know. As a species we tend to cling to the predictable while only the most adventurous and self destructive among us dabble in the unknown. And even then, most of us take a guide who has been there before.
For example, how many of us stay in jobs that are unfulfilled, that control our choices and dictate our daily lives? Some of us stay to provide our lives with structure. Some of us stay because we enjoy the money. Some of us stay because the alternative is just too frightening. Will we be able to afford our homes? Will we be able to pay our bills? Will we be able to feed ourselves and our families? Some of us stay in relationships that demean us. Some of us sit idly by while others make decisions about our communities and our government. Some of us just accept things as they are because we cannot conceive of an alternative. We willingly choose servitude, because in servitude we get to spread out responsibility. We get to delegate ownership of problems to someone else. The natural state of man is to seek safety and true freedom is not safe.
This may sound completely depressing, but I find it quite liberating. I am not saying that freedom is unattainable therefore we must give in to the machine. In fact, I am advocating the opposite. I believe that, within form there is freedom. At least within a creative sense. We need to fully understand the rules and the structures before we can break them and change perception. That is how it has always been done. That is how great movements always WILL be done.
I believe in the power of art to transform. I believe in the power of art to communicate. But I also believe that, in a polarized society like the one we have today, so called political art is so divisive that it only ends up preaching to the choir. I once read an article about a director who advocated the idea that only showing one side of any issue (the liberal side) is okay because the poor, downtrodden liberals need an outlet through which they can lick their collective wounds. To that I say BULLSHIT.
No. No. No, no no no no and NO.
If you believe in something, I believe you need to struggle to challenge that belief. Art should be on the front lines of the struggle to challenge not just our audience but ourselves. See the other side. Dig into it. Understand it. Be a part of it. Empathize with it. Are you worried you'll be swayed? That you'll change your position? Well. Then maybe you should. Then you will learn. You will grow. That is important for you as an artist, as a human being and it is vital for your audience. I know it is hard, but you must forever try not to have the answers. Art should be about questions not agendas. Express yourself. Express your personal feelings and beliefs, but never stop challenging them. Never. Be uncertain. Walk proudly beneath a banner that proclaims "I JUST DON'T KNOW"! If you really want to change the world then you need to communicate effectively in a way that does not invalidate those who experience the world differently than you.
This does not mean you should not offend or shock anyone. It means that you should do so judiciously. There is no law of God or Man that states "Thou Shalt Not Be Offended"! But this should come from an honest and questioning position, not as a form of attack. Because, quite honestly, who the hell are you to tell people what to think? Just like, who the hell am I to advocate public questioning? No one. Clearly, I am no one.
Maybe it isn't moderation that I am seeking. Maybe I am looking for Radical Understanding. You may be searching for something else. Perhaps my viewpoint doesn't necessarily apply to you. But what if it does?
It never hurts to ask.
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Soap Opera v. Truth: Circumstances and You
Here's a problem that stops me cold in my tracks every time.
Right now I am doing battle with circumstances in the play that I am writing. This happens to me to a certain degree with just about any project I take on and it seems to get worse the more personal the project.
In the midst of writing my new play it dawns on me why the patriach makes such a stink about his grown, single daughter's choice to have a child alone. Will, the patriarch, is so monsterously self centered that it makes a certain amount of sense for him to tell her, "You may not have liked your father, but at least you had one. He's going to hate you for what you've done to him!" However, it just stuck with me that there has to be something more about Will that neither his children (nor his writer) knows.
In the circumstances, Will has been a shoddy husband and father. He has been depressed, abusive and unfaithful throughout his marriage. As he begins to decline (due to Alzheimers) he seeks a spot of redemption from his family before it is too late. His family does not like him too much, with the exception of his ever faithful wife, Rita, who cares for him above and beyond the call of duty. What has been bothering me is that, throughout the text, the adult children treat their father as the man he once was, not the man he has become. They have sainted their mother, and due to the given circumstances they seem correct in their assumptions. However, there needs to be something more. Something more challenging in his past to explain his filandering and abuse of a good woman as well as her desperate attempts to be the good woman she is expected to be. Then it occurred to me that maybe, just maybe, Will isn't Rhonda's (the eldest child and aforementioned single mother) biological father. It would make sense, wouldn't it? Think about it. It would explain his venom in accusing Rhonda of not providing for her newborn son what he had bent over backward to provide for her - a father. It would absolve him (in his own mind, anyway) of 40 years of wrong doing because he did a "good" thing. It would explain some (not all) of Rita's patience with Will's past behavior and give a strong motivation to continue to care for him. He has made her pay for her indescretion during their 40 years of marriage. Over and over and over again. Clearly, Will has other issues, other circumstances that play in to his destructive choices, but I can't help but think this might be the path to take. there is even a good scene to reveal this information so that it doesn't feel like a formal reveal. Rather, it would be layered on top of another event which would make that information a bit more earth shattering than if it had been discovered through some more straight forward narrative device.
So, what's my problem then?
There is a bit of a "joke" that some theater people share about how close Chekhov's work is to a soap opera. I love Chekhov. He's a big influence on my writing. I understand the comparison and it even makes sense. It's true. However, what makes Chekhov better that a soap is his incredible wit, his use of language, his masterful juggling of circumstances, and his rather gentle hand with exposition. By "gentle hand with exposition" I mean that he does not beat you over the head with information. He says it once and then expands upon it. Or even better, he IMPLIES it once and then expands upon it! My weakness as a writer is that I don't expand as much as I would like and I almost never imply. I don't have the kind of faith in my audience that Chekhov has. I'm struggling to bury some of the things that I know about my characters and make it a part of their language instead of what they say. It's not what they say, it's HOW they say it. This takes tons of practice.
I'm concerned that this tweaking of circumstances will take me to soap opera land. However, I recognize that it isn't the circumstances that make soap opera, it's the use of dialogue and narrative structure that turn circumstances from good drama to schmaltz. This takes practice and faith in your own ability as a dramatist. Therein lies the struggle.
Speaking of "the givens", as I like to call the given circumstances, I recently saw "Little Miss Sunshine". Actually, I saw it twice which is rare for me with a theatrical release. At any rate, I was really taken with the building of circumstances in that film. It could have easily turned into soap opera or farce, but it didn't. (Okay, there's nothing wrong with farce. Farce is actually pretty cool, but here I mean farce in a negative way.) Part of the reason I went to see it twice was to see just where that tightrope walk really was. Allow, for a moment, my brief, inexpert dissection.
The exposition in the film was fun and well laid out, albeit fairly conventional. This is not a bad thing. The narrative was simple and logical, giving the audience everything we needed to know about these characters to make this impending road trip have weight and and urgency. Each character (with the notable exception of Mom and to a lesser extent Grandpa) has a dream or emotional goal at the beginning of the film. It is clear that these characters are in precarious places in their individual lives. Some of the characters have already been chipped away at. Frank, the uncle, has just attempted suicide after losing his career and experiencing an unrequited love affair. Grandpa was kicked out of his nursing home because he was snorting heroin. The kids, Dwayne and Olive, are both hopeful (to a certain extent) that they will reach their goals in life- if they can just make it to adulthood. Dad is clearly a loser who thinks he's a winner. Mom just really, really wants to keep her family from falling apart. As events unfold each of them loses something dear to them. Each of their dreams are completely shattered and then they find each other.
The way the circumstances were constructed allowed the audience to take a completely looney ride without question. After all the dreams, save young Olive's dream of competing in the Little Miss Sunshine pageant, had been stripped away it begins to make perfect sense why the family decides to steal a body and stick it in the trunk of their car. It makes perfect sense why a normal, red blooded, American family would support their seven year old stripping. It's outlandish, but is constructed in a way that makes it TRUE. Their choices are somewhat addled, but the givens are strong enough to make it seem that these crazy choices are the best and only choices to make at that particular point in time.
For instance, there is a point in the film where the entire family dances. After they get into it, they dance with abandon. It is an great release, but it brings me to tears even to think about it. This seemingly joyous and rebellious dancing was filled with terrible pain and sadness. I think I was the only one who cried instead of laughing, but for me it profoundly expressed where this family was in the arc of the story. It expressed their coming together under bizarre and painful circumstances, and it did it without saying a word. I love that shit.
I've been watching circumstances unfold in films, plays, politics, and my daily life ever since I became acutely aware of how circumstances affected people. I have built and knocked down and rebuilt the circumstances in my own life several times to try and better understand myself. The funny thing is, once you have a circumstance enter your life you have that piece of the puzzle with you forever. It may not always be in the forefront of your mind, but it still affects you in some way. The puzzle that is a human being just keeps getting bigger and bigger and bigger. In order to find truth as a writer or as an actor, regardless of genre, we must discover those circumstances and put them in their proper place, give them appropriate weight. In my first play, "Pull", Dan steals a doorknob from the faculty lounge at her school. Why a doorknob? Why not a seat back or a pencil sharpener? It turns out that, at a pivotal moment in her sexual devlopment she found herself locked in a basement with a boy who coerced her into a sexual act. Stealing a doorknob was like stealing her self possession, her power back. Of course, later in the play this very doorknob is used against her and I expect she will need years and years of therapy to come to terms with that, but that's a whole other story.
Maybe what I am trying to convince myself is that circumstances are not the problem. Layering and building circumstances would be the appropriate and interesting thing to do. As with a painting it isn't the existence of blue or red or purple that make a painting vital but how blue, red and purple are used in relation to one another.
All right. Now I think I've got it.
Right now I am doing battle with circumstances in the play that I am writing. This happens to me to a certain degree with just about any project I take on and it seems to get worse the more personal the project.
In the midst of writing my new play it dawns on me why the patriach makes such a stink about his grown, single daughter's choice to have a child alone. Will, the patriarch, is so monsterously self centered that it makes a certain amount of sense for him to tell her, "You may not have liked your father, but at least you had one. He's going to hate you for what you've done to him!" However, it just stuck with me that there has to be something more about Will that neither his children (nor his writer) knows.
In the circumstances, Will has been a shoddy husband and father. He has been depressed, abusive and unfaithful throughout his marriage. As he begins to decline (due to Alzheimers) he seeks a spot of redemption from his family before it is too late. His family does not like him too much, with the exception of his ever faithful wife, Rita, who cares for him above and beyond the call of duty. What has been bothering me is that, throughout the text, the adult children treat their father as the man he once was, not the man he has become. They have sainted their mother, and due to the given circumstances they seem correct in their assumptions. However, there needs to be something more. Something more challenging in his past to explain his filandering and abuse of a good woman as well as her desperate attempts to be the good woman she is expected to be. Then it occurred to me that maybe, just maybe, Will isn't Rhonda's (the eldest child and aforementioned single mother) biological father. It would make sense, wouldn't it? Think about it. It would explain his venom in accusing Rhonda of not providing for her newborn son what he had bent over backward to provide for her - a father. It would absolve him (in his own mind, anyway) of 40 years of wrong doing because he did a "good" thing. It would explain some (not all) of Rita's patience with Will's past behavior and give a strong motivation to continue to care for him. He has made her pay for her indescretion during their 40 years of marriage. Over and over and over again. Clearly, Will has other issues, other circumstances that play in to his destructive choices, but I can't help but think this might be the path to take. there is even a good scene to reveal this information so that it doesn't feel like a formal reveal. Rather, it would be layered on top of another event which would make that information a bit more earth shattering than if it had been discovered through some more straight forward narrative device.
So, what's my problem then?
There is a bit of a "joke" that some theater people share about how close Chekhov's work is to a soap opera. I love Chekhov. He's a big influence on my writing. I understand the comparison and it even makes sense. It's true. However, what makes Chekhov better that a soap is his incredible wit, his use of language, his masterful juggling of circumstances, and his rather gentle hand with exposition. By "gentle hand with exposition" I mean that he does not beat you over the head with information. He says it once and then expands upon it. Or even better, he IMPLIES it once and then expands upon it! My weakness as a writer is that I don't expand as much as I would like and I almost never imply. I don't have the kind of faith in my audience that Chekhov has. I'm struggling to bury some of the things that I know about my characters and make it a part of their language instead of what they say. It's not what they say, it's HOW they say it. This takes tons of practice.
I'm concerned that this tweaking of circumstances will take me to soap opera land. However, I recognize that it isn't the circumstances that make soap opera, it's the use of dialogue and narrative structure that turn circumstances from good drama to schmaltz. This takes practice and faith in your own ability as a dramatist. Therein lies the struggle.
Speaking of "the givens", as I like to call the given circumstances, I recently saw "Little Miss Sunshine". Actually, I saw it twice which is rare for me with a theatrical release. At any rate, I was really taken with the building of circumstances in that film. It could have easily turned into soap opera or farce, but it didn't. (Okay, there's nothing wrong with farce. Farce is actually pretty cool, but here I mean farce in a negative way.) Part of the reason I went to see it twice was to see just where that tightrope walk really was. Allow, for a moment, my brief, inexpert dissection.
The exposition in the film was fun and well laid out, albeit fairly conventional. This is not a bad thing. The narrative was simple and logical, giving the audience everything we needed to know about these characters to make this impending road trip have weight and and urgency. Each character (with the notable exception of Mom and to a lesser extent Grandpa) has a dream or emotional goal at the beginning of the film. It is clear that these characters are in precarious places in their individual lives. Some of the characters have already been chipped away at. Frank, the uncle, has just attempted suicide after losing his career and experiencing an unrequited love affair. Grandpa was kicked out of his nursing home because he was snorting heroin. The kids, Dwayne and Olive, are both hopeful (to a certain extent) that they will reach their goals in life- if they can just make it to adulthood. Dad is clearly a loser who thinks he's a winner. Mom just really, really wants to keep her family from falling apart. As events unfold each of them loses something dear to them. Each of their dreams are completely shattered and then they find each other.
The way the circumstances were constructed allowed the audience to take a completely looney ride without question. After all the dreams, save young Olive's dream of competing in the Little Miss Sunshine pageant, had been stripped away it begins to make perfect sense why the family decides to steal a body and stick it in the trunk of their car. It makes perfect sense why a normal, red blooded, American family would support their seven year old stripping. It's outlandish, but is constructed in a way that makes it TRUE. Their choices are somewhat addled, but the givens are strong enough to make it seem that these crazy choices are the best and only choices to make at that particular point in time.
For instance, there is a point in the film where the entire family dances. After they get into it, they dance with abandon. It is an great release, but it brings me to tears even to think about it. This seemingly joyous and rebellious dancing was filled with terrible pain and sadness. I think I was the only one who cried instead of laughing, but for me it profoundly expressed where this family was in the arc of the story. It expressed their coming together under bizarre and painful circumstances, and it did it without saying a word. I love that shit.
I've been watching circumstances unfold in films, plays, politics, and my daily life ever since I became acutely aware of how circumstances affected people. I have built and knocked down and rebuilt the circumstances in my own life several times to try and better understand myself. The funny thing is, once you have a circumstance enter your life you have that piece of the puzzle with you forever. It may not always be in the forefront of your mind, but it still affects you in some way. The puzzle that is a human being just keeps getting bigger and bigger and bigger. In order to find truth as a writer or as an actor, regardless of genre, we must discover those circumstances and put them in their proper place, give them appropriate weight. In my first play, "Pull", Dan steals a doorknob from the faculty lounge at her school. Why a doorknob? Why not a seat back or a pencil sharpener? It turns out that, at a pivotal moment in her sexual devlopment she found herself locked in a basement with a boy who coerced her into a sexual act. Stealing a doorknob was like stealing her self possession, her power back. Of course, later in the play this very doorknob is used against her and I expect she will need years and years of therapy to come to terms with that, but that's a whole other story.
Maybe what I am trying to convince myself is that circumstances are not the problem. Layering and building circumstances would be the appropriate and interesting thing to do. As with a painting it isn't the existence of blue or red or purple that make a painting vital but how blue, red and purple are used in relation to one another.
All right. Now I think I've got it.
My Life In Art
Ah, how pretentious.
I am struggling to find a tone that suits my new endeavor. Let's face it, I am making this up as I go along. No matter.
First, QWIP will be about my art and only about my art. Of course, art is a personal thing and from time to time you WILL catch me musing about social and/or political issues, personal events, observations and the like, but only as they relate to my choices as an artist.
Second, I will limit my links on this blog to sites pertaining to my artistic interests.
Third, I hope to eventually bring other artists in to write about their process. That will come in due time. Right now I need to pull myself together and start building this blog. When it is good, people will join me.
Fourth, I am going to try to express myself intelligently and my inner sailor will have to find a different outlet. I won't bar the use of profanity officially, but I am going to challenge my vocabulary because the time for these infantile pursuits has passed.
And last, this blog will make me accountable. No more claiming involvement in projects that never materialize. If it is in print here I am bound to complete the project. I will talk about my process, ask for opinions, give advice and, in general, work to build a community of artists who work for the sake of working.
As I grow older, I realize that art is not a luxury for me. This is how my brain works. This is how I process the world around me and learn how to cope. If I don't have it, I fall apart. My art makes me strong. It provides me with an outlet for my confusion, my anger and my love. It bestows its own wisdom and peace upon me
So welcome. Come in. Sit down. Have some coffee. Breathe. But please, be quiet. There's a work in progress.
I am struggling to find a tone that suits my new endeavor. Let's face it, I am making this up as I go along. No matter.
First, QWIP will be about my art and only about my art. Of course, art is a personal thing and from time to time you WILL catch me musing about social and/or political issues, personal events, observations and the like, but only as they relate to my choices as an artist.
Second, I will limit my links on this blog to sites pertaining to my artistic interests.
Third, I hope to eventually bring other artists in to write about their process. That will come in due time. Right now I need to pull myself together and start building this blog. When it is good, people will join me.
Fourth, I am going to try to express myself intelligently and my inner sailor will have to find a different outlet. I won't bar the use of profanity officially, but I am going to challenge my vocabulary because the time for these infantile pursuits has passed.
And last, this blog will make me accountable. No more claiming involvement in projects that never materialize. If it is in print here I am bound to complete the project. I will talk about my process, ask for opinions, give advice and, in general, work to build a community of artists who work for the sake of working.
As I grow older, I realize that art is not a luxury for me. This is how my brain works. This is how I process the world around me and learn how to cope. If I don't have it, I fall apart. My art makes me strong. It provides me with an outlet for my confusion, my anger and my love. It bestows its own wisdom and peace upon me
So welcome. Come in. Sit down. Have some coffee. Breathe. But please, be quiet. There's a work in progress.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
