i just can't take laugh tracks

Love this quote from an interview with Albee.

"I’ve always loved very sophisticated comedy and cheap comedy. It’s the stuff in between I have problems with."

For the whole thing go here.

Thanks to Adam for the link.

inching along in a cloud of smoke

I was one of the minions that helped elect Tim Kaine. I think he has a lot to offer Virginia and am excited that he has made transportation and education at the forefront of his agenda. Now I want to disagree with him. Sorry Tim.

Kaine is against the gas tax. This is really no surprise, as he was against it all along. I tend to think along the lines of Bill Maher. Gas should be more expensive, not less. I feel that, like tobacco and alcohol, it should be heavily taxed. Gas should be so heavily taxed that carmakers will freak out and start making all their cars be exceptionally fuel efficient, and that the voters will support anything that will hasten along the building of metrorails and public transportation. This really comes down to the environmentalist in me. High gas prices discourage its use and encourage carpooling, and taking the metro. I think we should heavily tax anything that emits noxious fumes into our air. This includes cars, boats, trucks, factories and Karl Rove (I think the level of pollutants from Rove are single handedly responsible for the melting polar ice caps).

My other reason for supporting the tax comes from the commuter in me. If we took the proceeds of a large gas tax and funneled it directly to transportation issues, it is not only metro that would be built, but wider and new roadways. Then I would burn less fuel (again better for our ozone), and get to my destination in half the time, and the cost would be a wash. I am someone who that gas tax would hit hardest, I cringe at the thought of the prices I would pay, but I am willing to make the sacrifice. Now we only need a few thousand others to feel the same way.

shake up shake down

Did you see the news about Snow? McClellan was as numbing as novacaine, but Snow is scary and prettier than his predecessor (both traits that serve Bush well). Both can sling pure bullshit, but Snow will do it more effectively. Watching him actually makes my blood pressure rise. McClellan just made me laugh.

With every change in the Bush administration comes the opportunity for them to make it worse than it already is.

take it again

I am in tech right now. It is a little rough, mostly because of the vast amount of sound and light cues. I also have some freelance work I have to get done. I am feeling fuzzy and hazey and want to talk about McClellan resigning, or Rumsfeld being a complete ass, but I am tired, so I will give you something fun to visit instead.

I am totally going to their next taping!

funny funny, ha ha funny

While in Chicago I was lucky enough to see a couple different improv shows and be part of an exceptional commedia workshop. First off I will say that the commedia brought on such a wistfulness for me that I am still fantasizing about starting my own commedia troupe here. That is how good they were, and how good I wish I could be, but it has been years since I did any of that work and I would need to be fully retrained before doing it again.

As I sat through the improv shows I took note again of how underrepresented women are in comedy. Especially in improv comedy. Here is why I think that there are less women than men in comedy.

Men are funnier than women.

I hate to admit this. I hate to say this. It is, however, true. The question is, why. Why are men funnier than women?

I asked this very question to City Mouse a few nights ago, as we downed our dinner whilst appreciating the spring air in Dupont. *She started in about gender roles and about how women are raised to be more docile and to be nurturers. I don't disagree with her thoughts, but I think that it really all boils down to sexuality. Women do not own their sexuality in the same way men do.

In comedy,

A man kissing a man is funny.

A woman kissing a woman is hot.

A man in drag is funny.

A woman in drag is hot.

The interesting part of the weekend came with the commedia workshop, in which we were treated to a sample of the amazing work they do at TriArts. Only here did I see the women well represented. In their masks, gender was unimportant. The physicalization of commedia, and in particular, the new twist that their Adult Swim Ensemble has added, eschews any sexuality for pure character work. They play each stock character, male or female, with such ease and precision that the only way to tell who is who, is to watch their shoes (the only costume piece that does not change during their shows).

Before anyone gets in a huff, let me state that there are many talented female comedians and comic actresses. I am sure many will disagree with my assertion about females and comedy. I too wish it was different. The one conclusion I can come to is that in order for woman to be the comedian and not the butt of a joke, she has to be willing to forgo sexuality to some extent, just, I think, as many men do. Think of the ladies on SNL. All are very pretty, but not one uses it in there comedy. Maybe what it comes down to is that comedy is not so pretty as much as it is clean and timely. So 'sexy' has very little place in it. Sex has a big place in comedy, but not sexy.

I have reached the point of blathering. Someone chime in. Anyone?

*CM - Sorry for abbreviating your remarks so much.

throat hurts too

I am back. Chicago was great and I have a major thought on my mind. It started in the windy city and grew as I flew back. But for the moment I am too worn out from the trip and rehearsal. Tomorrow my friends.

not the macarena

Oh, but before I get on a plane can I just mention the little dance I have been doing at the demise of DeLay!

Why is he always smiling? Does he really think that it makes us all believe he is confident and innocent? Hell no! It solidifies his utter evilness. Smiling, always smiling. I bet he cackles and rubs his hands together while doing an Iago-like shifting of his beady eyes.

On his own terms?

Which terms would those be?

Were those the terms of being indicted for felony money-laundering or because of being so closely linked with the corruption charges by lobbyist Jack Abramoff? No his own terms means defeating other Republicans so they cannot take his seat! Evil I tell you, evil!

monday monday

There is always this place of frustration for me in the rehearsal process; after choices have been made and major discoveries have happened, when you have to begin to let it flow. Lines cease to be words on a page and become your natural instinct. Right before I hit my stride I have the worst couple of rehearsals where everything feels clunky and I forget every memorized word and the arc of each scene does not seem to match what I had previously done. I have to remind myself that this will pass, but it always catches me off guard.

It also comes at a weird time in this particular rehearsal process, because I have to go to Chicago for the next few days and I am not prepared for the absence. I wanted to feel like my grasp on this show had gelled more before leaving. I have promised myself that I will read the show and mentally walk through it once a day until I get back.

I watch some actors and it seems so effortless for them during rehearsals. There are times like that for me as well, but I always hit a couple snags and have to take a step back to see the picture again before moving on. I am craving that moment when it all fits and the puzzle makes sense and then it just feels oh so wonderful to let the part crackle and spark out of me. I know some actors who love the rehearsal process for its discovery and, in fact say it is their favorite part of doing theatre. I do love finding a role, and exploring a script. I am always happy and willing to try something new, but I must say that I love it best when it all comes together and fits just right.

Until next week...

grammar? i hardley know her

At an audition last week I ran into a cliche head on. I ran into the actor who says 'little'. It is their way of making themselves superior during their backhanded compliment.

AWSL: So what show are you doing right now?

Me: I am doing 'Show Title'.

AWSL: Oh, is 'Other Actor' in it? She is a good little actress.

Me: Actually she is normal size.

So maybe I did not say that last line. I was not wanting to stir the waters two seconds before having to read with this person. The conversation, which I tried to keep to a minimum, got worse.

AWSL: How are 'Show Title' rehearsals going?

Me: Good, thanks.

AWSL: How do you like playing that part?

Me: I love it.

AWSL: Is it coming easily?

Me: I am still figuring her out, but it is going well.

AWSL: Her? I hate it when actors refer to their characters in the third person. I never do it.

Me: Lets go over these sides again before we go back in.

I am not rehashing this to ruminate on her rudeness, but because I started wondering on the drive home, how else one thinks about a role they are playing. I remember reading on someone else's blog about actors discussing their characters in the third person (wish I could remember which blog), and I don't have a problem with folks who do not approach it that way; but the truth is that I do not know of a better way to articulate beat changes, intentions, history, and motivation when analyzing my character.

When I discuss any literature, I discuss the people in that story in the third person. Why would I change this when I am discussing a role in a play? I don't feel that it alienates me from my role to do so, it just gives me the ability to understand them better. I never judge a character I am playing, to do so would be the death of it. Is that what this actor feared? That in talking about it as a separate entity she would render it separate from her? Is there a venacular that I am ignorant of that gives actors a different vocabulary for delving into a role. I confess that while I have read about different acting methods, and trained in several of them, I have not encountered one yet that discourages references to your character in the third person.

I have, however, done many improv exercises playing roles where you switch to the first person. But at that point I am inhabiting the role. While in character it makes sense and feels right to use 'I'. But when I am discussing the role in the abstract, or dissecting it in a discussion, than it just seems odd.

I will continue to do what is comfortable to me, but I am curious as to the process of an actor who refuses to refer to their characters in the third person, or any director that does not want their actors to use that convention.

jill back from a tiny room

I have thought about her all the time since she was taken. Every time more bodies were found I held me breath thinking she would be among them. Her abduction stayed with me.

I cannot tell you the relief that I felt today at her release.

hmm hmm hmm - hmm hmm hmm

Ever have that day where you have a song stuck in your head and you want to hear it so badly and then you have to go to rehearsal and you keep humming it at every break until you get everyone else humming it and then you go to an audition and you are singing it in your head all the way until you walk in the room and you only stop humming it when doing the audition, but then it is back again before you even say your last 'thank you'; and then you're tired and driving home and the song just won't stop and then you turn on the radio, which you never listen to because you have an ipod, but the ipod is out of juice and lo and behold...

THE SONG STARTS RIGHT WHEN YOU TURN ON THE RADIO!

It exorcises the song from your brain. Hallelujah.

secrets of the universe do not come in manila envelopes

Fanaticism in any religious doctrine preys on the weakness in individuals. It preys on their insecurities, their loneliness and their inability to find direction.

This is why, although I come from a very open minded, and religiously mixed background, I find that I have a hard time reconciling sprituality with religion.

letting them know how it is

More chats with a small person.

Smaller: Why did VanGogh cut off his ear?

Me: Well I guess because he was sick in his head and when you are sick like that you may do strange things.

Smaller: What kind of strange things?

Me: Well the ear thing I suppose, or saying things that are weird, stuff like that.

Smaller: You mean like the weird stuff Mr. X says, is he sick in his head?

Me: No , he's just Republican.

Smaller: Ohhhh, I get it.

why they won't

Once again I am late in the game on talking about something. But here goes.

The fear of our government banning all abortions is a real one. I understand why many people believe that we are headed in that direction but let me tell you why I don't think we are.

When South Dakota banned all abortions unless the woman's life is in danger, it took an issue that politics and religion have been talking about in the abstract and brought it into reality. It brought it about during the time of impending election and during the time of new Supreme Court justices. The South Dakota legislature may have thought this was the perfect time to do it, but they could not have misjudged the climate more.

The Supreme Court's two new justices are appointees of our current president. Our current unpopular, warmongering, numbskull of a president. They are still however, judges. Yes, I am upset that it was Bush who got to nominate them instead of Clinton nominating someone I like more, but these judges will still be faced with the same legalities involved with trying to over turn Roe v. Wade. Precedent has been set. These judges are old enough to remember the times of coat hanger abortions, and they do not want to be the ones who force a 14 year old girl who was raped by her father to then give birth to a baby conceived from that violation.

Let's go on further to the Republican party as a whole. Republicans have used the abortion issue as a way to sway voters for many years. But now they are faced with entering an election cycle with an extremely unpopular president and the moderates that they picked up to win the last election will be making a mass exodus. If you want to see voter turn out, then lets tell the women of America that their right to choose is on the line. In actuality, it is always on the line, but they won't all vote until they are cornered.

Now take a worst case scenario. Roe v. Wade is overturned and South Dakota's law is made national. Fast forward to a victim of a brutal rape who becomes pregnant and then illegally gets an abortion and gets arrested. Imagine that woman's face plastered all over the newspapers. The media and the public will find this martyr; and anyone who voted to over turn Roe v. Wade will now be the devil. Or some young girl with an angel's face will die in an illegal botched procedure. It can happen. These thoughts will haunt any person who is running for office, and anyone who votes to ban abortions. The simple truth will force its way through. That you cannot commandeer a persons body for any purpose.

South Dakota has jump started an ugly machine that, while we all argued, had laid dormant for a long time. Like everything else under this current administration, South Dakota's law seeks to move us backwards as a nation and as a people. Instead of moving backwards in a woman's right to choose, education, human rights, poverty, economy, and peace; we need a leader to move us forward to a higher level of thinking and acceptance.

This all may be optimism on my part. I remember when I knew with certainty that there was no way this country would ever let Bush be president, and then I knew with certainty that this country would never elect Bush president. I was obviously wrong. Here's hoping I am right on this one.

marketing makes my ass twitch

Before the Oscars...













After the Oscars...



















Anyone else find this hysterical?

let the play happen and keep watching

It occurs to me that while everyone is busy debating the censorship of My Name is Rachel Corrie, that the show will make out better than it did before the issue arose.

Meanwhile things just keep getting worse and new diaries are being written everyday.

netflix and blockbuster don't get me

Does anyone out there know a place where I can rent indie movies and/or documentaries here in the DC area? I have several titles that I cannot find.

moment of procrastination

I am fairly cranky at the moment due to the absurd amount of work that has been coming my way lately. I need the work. I need the money that the work makes. It is a good thing to have these projects, but I feel like I am sinking into an abyss of photoshop, illustrator and sketch pads. There are little pieces of paper everywhere and the list of incomplete work is long.

I am, at this moment, so thankful I did not take that last show. This revitalizes the idea that everything happens for a reason.

Amidst the mess I actually surfaced with the thought today of Shakespeare's sister. The fictional sister, Judith, that Virginia Woolf conjures in A Room of One's Own. I was 18 when I first read her words and it was a light bulb moment for me. For a long time I could not read that particular passage without getting choked up. It still gets me sometimes.

Very soon he got work in the theatre, became a successful actor, and lived at the hub of the universe, meeting everybody, knowing everybody, practising his art on the boards, exercising his wits in the streets, and even getting access to the palace of the queen. Meanwhile his extraordinarily gifted sister, let us suppose, remained at home. She was as adventurous, as imaginative, as agog to see the world as he was. But she was not sent to school. She had no chance of learning grammar and logic, let alone of reading Horace and Virgil. She picked up a book now and then, one of her brother's perhaps, and read a few pages. But then her parents came in and told her to mend the stockings or mind the stew and not moon about with books and papers. They would have spoken sharply but kindly, for they were substantial people who knew the conditions of life for a woman and loved their daughter--indeed, more likely than not she was the apple of her father's eye. Perhaps she scribbled some pages up in an apple loft on the sly but was careful to hide them or set fire to them. Soon, however, before she was out of her teens, she was to be betrothed to the son of a neighbouring wool-stapler. She cried out that marriage was hateful to her, and for that she was severely beaten by her father. Then he ceased to scold her. He begged her instead not to hurt him, not to shame him in this matter of her marriage. He would give her a chain of beads or a fine petticoat, he said; and there were tears in his eyes. How could she disobey him? How could she break his heart? The force of her own gift alone drove her to it. She made up a small parcel of her belongings, let herself down by a rope one summer's night and took the road to London. She was not seventeen. The birds that sang in the hedge were not more musical than she was. She had the quickest fancy, a gift like her brother's, for the tune of words. Like him, she had a taste for the theatre. She stood at the stage door; she wanted to act, she said. Men laughed in her face. The manager- a fat, looselipped man- guffawed. He bellowed something about poodles dancing and women acting- no woman, he said, could possibly be an actress. He hinted- you can imagine what. She could get no training in her craft. Could she even seek her dinner in a tavern or roam the streets at midnight? Yet her genius was for fiction and lusted to feed abundantly upon the lives of men and women and the study of their ways. At last for she was very young, oddly like Shakespeare the poet in her face, with the same grey eyes and rounded brows- at last Nick Greene the actor-manager took pity on her; she found herself with child by that gentleman and so- who shall measure the heat and violence of the poet's heart when caught and tangled in a woman's body?- killed herself one winter's night and lies buried at some cross-roads where the omnibuses now stop outside the Elephant and Castle.
-Virginia Woolf, A Room Of One's Own

Judith would be free to roam now, but this says something about artists. Yes, I am thankful for the work, but it muddles my brain and, I too, would rather be at the 'hub of the universe'.

he had garlic breath for my first onstage kiss

Wow. This has me floored.

When I think of Mark Ravenhill, writing for young people does not immediately spring to mind. Shopping & Fucking comes to mind. This is not to say he could not do it. Tony Kushner has paired up with Maurice Sendak to do a show appropriate for young people, and it looks very promising. Writers can work in many different styles. Yada, yada, yada.

Here is my favorite quote from the article. Ravenhill says...

"I wanted to write a play that would humanise sex for young people. I rewrote Citizenship in the light of those discussions with London teenagers: they emboldened me to develop the physical contact between the young characters, to be honest about young people's fascination with and confusion about sex. Still, I decided not to ask for any full nudity. The play would be performed by young people in front of parents, teachers and friends and I thought it would raise too many difficult questions. What the play does demand is a great deal of full-on sexualised kissing. I've since discovered that kissing between two teenage boys on stage can lead to young audiences doing anything from whooping with delight right through to booing with disgust - but never staying silent."

He decided not to ask for full nudity? He thought that would bring on too many difficult questions? What, like, why are you telling underage students to engage in sexual moments in front of an audience? Does he mean questions like that? What is he thinking?

Yes, teens are goofy about sex. It is crazy to me that he is just figuring this out. He had to have gone through puberty.

I think that the banning of kissing from school plays is ludicrous, but the sexually heated kissing that Ravenhill used is disturbing. Theatre teachers have to walk a fine line with their students. They have to build trust with their casts in such a careful way because these kids are still walking, talking hormones. They can shatter at a moments notice, and then turn around and be unbelievably strong for other things. The point being that you can never know what you are going to get. Sexuality at that age is not something teens look at with any objectivity, and the lines of what is occurring onstage and off blur even more frequently than they do with adults.

Imagine, for a moment, a school here in the U.S. where a teacher commissions a play about sex, and talks to his students about sex, and asks his students to engage in "a great deal of full-on sexualised kissing", and then directs two boys to engage in this same kissing, and then has his students perform it for the community. Yes, said teacher would no longer be teaching.

So, fine, Europe is not as prudish as the U.S., but the same issue is at stake. Why would you take an emotionally immature and vulnerable MINOR and direct them to do sexually charged acts in front of their community? What answers would it bring that could not be brought in a well mediated discussion with parents or counselors, or the like? In my mind it would raise more questions for all involved then answers. Questions without answers is not always a good thing. Sometimes that just creates more confusion.

Ravenhill seemed to think that because these teens were excited by the discussion, they were then ready to perform it. This cannot come as a shocker to anyone that teens love a juicy discussion about sex. They also love getting attention from people. Let's combine that talk about sex with an open minded, famous playwright, who is writing down the things you say, and they must have thought they were the coolest people on the earth (I know I would have).

I agree with Ravenhill that artistic integrity should not be compromised, but he goes on to say...

"Drama is sexual - it's about bodies, about display, about fantasy - and puritan regimes have always resisted it. We can't ignore the fact that we live in a sexualised culture. And a school play can either perpetuate the sexualisation of young people, as many school musicals and cabarets do, or it can be used to tackle the complex physical and emotional world young people find themselves in."

I am foggy as to why he thinks we have to abandon tackling sexuality if it is not put on stage. We do live in a sexually charged culture, which is why it should be tackled, but is having kids act out these issues really the best way to go about it? Should sexual discovery be made so public? I still get nervous the first few times I have to do love and/or a sexual scene on stage, can you imagine what a 14 year old with no experience might feel? It reeks of exploitation to watch such a young person explore sexuality in front of a crowd.

So maybe what we should think about is being careful about what work we teach and how we teach it. Hold on folks, I am not advocating censorship, far from it. Not all drama is sexual and using teenagers to tackle sexual issues is a scary road. What I am advocating is accountability and responsibility. As artists we may feel that we should be neither, that being responsible or accountable is restricting to what we do. But teachers have to forego that freedom because they are accountable to those that they teach. As any long time teacher knows, what they teach their students can have lasting effects, both good and bad.

old men who make wishes come true, but not really

I dare you to try and explain to a small person

why Santa does not exist

but God does.

What a day...